tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45677282502042498432024-03-16T19:56:46.387-07:00.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger636125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-34073372496907543832024-03-16T19:56:00.000-07:002024-03-16T19:56:15.074-07:00Why Care About the Contexts of People’s Ideas and Beliefs When Doing Philosophy?<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times;"> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="9149"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="e907"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(ii) Two Cases: Immanuel Kant and Philip Goff</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Too Much Context?</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) The Objectivity of a Free Market Think Tank</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Abortion and the Nazis Again!</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) The Nazis Believed Things Which Are True</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d4be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*OJN3KHED8qA4WqTSLzRzkw.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*OJN3KHED8qA4WqTSLzRzkw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Did this book go too far in the direction of (1)?</span></strong></figcaption></figure><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="5ee2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Opening note:</span></h4><p class="graf graf--p" name="ec02"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The word “context” will be used in this essay a fair few times. It’s a catchall term for capturing the circumstances, social/psychological backgrounds, historical/social surroundings, etc. which (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">give birth</em> to the ideas and beliefs of philosophers and scientists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="13db"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">However, what follows isn’t going to be sociological, psychological and/or historical in nature. Instead, it’s about the role of context when specifically dealing with the ideas, beliefs and theories of philosophers and scientists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e007"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Ironically (or perhaps not), then, I’m going to be offering arguments (mainly aimed at analytic philosophers) as to why concentrating entirely on arguments may not always be the best — and only — approach when doing philosophy.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="4e0c" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Introduction: The Contexts of Discovery</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="cc81"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="493" data-image-id="1*J2kGX7Rz7DV_i2LmN9jGzA.png" data-width="818" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*J2kGX7Rz7DV_i2LmN9jGzA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e320"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In philosophy, and perhaps generally, should we completely ignore the aetiologies and contexts of scientists' and philosophers’ beliefs, ideas and theories?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="94d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One reason it’s unwise to do so is that from the (as philosophers put it) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery+and+belief&sca_esv=5b2e6e9ffdc26326&sxsrf=ACQVn08RvKLa-oQ8lQAmLl_pJFbTtZRaQA%3A1709164801570&source=hp&ei=AcnfZb7TIKyLxc8PrNmRuAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd_XEQBx58ib_FGNTZEAy6_ondRbrqAu&ved=0ahUKEwj-1-6Gn8-EAxWsRfEDHaxsBFcQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery+and+belief&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih9jb250ZXh0IG9mIGRpc2NvdmVyeSBhbmQgYmVsaWVmMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI3whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBfKABfKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAaAChQGYAwCSBwMwLjE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery+and+belief&sca_esv=5b2e6e9ffdc26326&sxsrf=ACQVn08RvKLa-oQ8lQAmLl_pJFbTtZRaQA%3A1709164801570&source=hp&ei=AcnfZb7TIKyLxc8PrNmRuAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd_XEQBx58ib_FGNTZEAy6_ondRbrqAu&ved=0ahUKEwj-1-6Gn8-EAxWsRfEDHaxsBFcQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery+and+belief&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih9jb250ZXh0IG9mIGRpc2NvdmVyeSBhbmQgYmVsaWVmMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI3whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBfKABfKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAaAChQGYAwCSBwMwLjE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context of discovery and belief</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>we<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>can gain a better understanding of the beliefs and ideas <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em>. Thus, the contexts <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(</strong>whether psychological, historical, political, etc.) in these cases would only be a means to a philosophical end.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97f4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To put that another way. By learning about contexts, we may actually gain an insight into — and a better understanding of — philosophers’ and scientists’ beliefs and ideas<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> themselves</em>.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="af4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*Xk0nBvOuQPKVCp_v8bRmCg.jpeg" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Xk0nBvOuQPKVCp_v8bRmCg.jpeg" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What should we make of this context?</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="65b9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, the following <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">binary opposition</em></a> between</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="efad"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(1) Focussing almost entirely on context (e.g., biography, etc.).</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="a4ec"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">and</span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="2365"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(2) Completely ignoring everything except for the actual arguments and ideas of individuals.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7b6d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">must be questioned.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d54"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many (even most) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">analytic philosophers</a> may well go too far in the direction of (2), whereas many other people go too far in the direction of (1).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0d13" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Two Cases: Immanuel Kant and Philip Goff</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a572"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="445" data-image-id="1*8bWFn39EdDiAut4HaRf7YQ.png" data-width="870" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*8bWFn39EdDiAut4HaRf7YQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Philip Goff’s ethical and political panpsychism.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e645"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I once wrote an essay on<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Immanuel<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Kant in which I mentioned his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior</em> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pietistic Lutheranism</a>.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Indeed, in that same essay, I also mentioned<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the English philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a> and his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior</em> politics.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">[</strong>See my<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/do-the-hidden-motives-of-philip-goff-and-immanuel-kant-matter-e14f2dd062bf" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/do-the-hidden-motives-of-philip-goff-and-immanuel-kant-matter-e14f2dd062bf" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Do the (Hidden) Motives of Philip Goff and Immanuel Kant Matter?’</a>.] </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More concretely, I attempted to tie the prior <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">non-philosophical</em> beliefs, ideas and values of both Kant and Goff to their later <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> ideas and theories. [See the many essays, papers and books on ‘Kant and Pietism’ <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Immanuel+Kant+and+Pietism&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-wWVEIOvqpr8KHiLkOvVmpY3jw3Q%3A1709048020260&source=hp&ei=1ADeZY3TC42P9u8PxOab0AU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd4O5Fi7j1NGuQBrJSQTjAtSOwJDsbRv&ved=0ahUKEwiNjZeB7MuEAxWNh_0HHUTzBloQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Immanuel+Kant+and+Pietism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhlJbW1hbnVlbCBLYW50IGFuZCBQaWV0aXNtMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI90NQAFjuPnAEeACQAQCYAY4BoAH3FqoBBTE1LjE0uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIhoALBGMICChAjGIAEGIoFGCfCAgQQIxgnwgIKEC4YgAQYigUYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICEBAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIREC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwHCAgoQLhiABBiKBRhDwgIQEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxjJA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAhEQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDAcICEBAuGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICDRAAGIAEGBQYhwIYsQPCAhYQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDARhGGPkBwgIQEC4YQxiDARixAxiABBiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgINEC4YChiDARixAxiABMICDRAAGIAEGAoYsQMYgwHCAgoQABiABBgKGLEDwgINEC4YgAQYChjHARivAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDmAMAkgcFMTUuMTg&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Immanuel+Kant+and+Pietism&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-wWVEIOvqpr8KHiLkOvVmpY3jw3Q%3A1709048020260&source=hp&ei=1ADeZY3TC42P9u8PxOab0AU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd4O5Fi7j1NGuQBrJSQTjAtSOwJDsbRv&ved=0ahUKEwiNjZeB7MuEAxWNh_0HHUTzBloQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Immanuel+Kant+and+Pietism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhlJbW1hbnVlbCBLYW50IGFuZCBQaWV0aXNtMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI90NQAFjuPnAEeACQAQCYAY4BoAH3FqoBBTE1LjE0uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIhoALBGMICChAjGIAEGIoFGCfCAgQQIxgnwgIKEC4YgAQYigUYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICEBAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIREC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwHCAgoQLhiABBiKBRhDwgIQEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxjJA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAhEQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDAcICEBAuGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICDRAAGIAEGBQYhwIYsQPCAhYQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDARhGGPkBwgIQEC4YQxiDARixAxiABBiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgINEC4YChiDARixAxiABMICDRAAGIAEGAoYsQMYgwHCAgoQABiABBgKGLEDwgINEC4YgAQYChjHARivAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDmAMAkgcFMTUuMTg&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7eaf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, in both cases, I didn’t rely exclusively on <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context</em>. Indeed, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context </em>simply<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>served what I took to be a philosophical and argumentative purpose.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6823"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More specifically, I used the words “ulterior motives” in the essay on Kant. And I happily acknowledged that I too had an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">ulterior motive</em> for arguing that Kant had moral — and even religious - <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">ulterior motives</em> for advancing his own philosophies. Indeed, I quoted Kant (more or less) admitting that he had such an ulterior motive.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="053b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Critique of Pure Reason</em></a>, Kant<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>wrote the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Critique_of_Pure_Reason/IzFmDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%E2%80%A6there+can+only+be+one+ultimate+end+of+all+the+operations+of+the+mind.+To+this+all+other+aims+are+subordinate%2C+and+nothing+more+than+means+for+its+attainment.+This+ultimate+end+is+the+destination+of+man%E2%80%A6The+superior+position+occupied+by+moral+philosophy%2C+above+all+other+spheres%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PA248&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Critique_of_Pure_Reason/IzFmDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%E2%80%A6there+can+only+be+one+ultimate+end+of+all+the+operations+of+the+mind.+To+this+all+other+aims+are+subordinate%2C+and+nothing+more+than+means+for+its+attainment.+This+ultimate+end+is+the+destination+of+man%E2%80%A6The+superior+position+occupied+by+moral+philosophy%2C+above+all+other+spheres%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PA248&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2e3b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[T]<i>here can only be one ultimate end of all the operations of the mind. To this all other aims are subordinate, and nothing more than means for its attainment. This ultimate end is the destination of man. </i>[]<i> The superior position occupied by moral philosophy, above all other spheres.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="94d5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is a long statement that “moral philosophy” should be — or actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> — <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/dialogue-canadian-philosophical-review-revue-canadienne-de-philosophie/article/abs/first-philosophy-metaphysics-or-epistemology/84DA7438578705819210BF2793B9485B" href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/dialogue-canadian-philosophical-review-revue-canadienne-de-philosophie/article/abs/first-philosophy-metaphysics-or-epistemology/84DA7438578705819210BF2793B9485B" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">First Philosophy</a>. In other words, the quote above is an honest acknowledgement by Kant of his own moral — and perhaps religious - <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">ulterior motive</em>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[The mid-20th-century French philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Emmanuel Levinas</a> explicitly stated that Ethics <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> — or at least it <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">should be</em> — First Philosophy. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas#:~:text=Levinas%27s%20thesis%20%22ethics%20as%20first,whose%20books%20reportedly%20sold%20well." href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas#:~:text=Levinas%27s%20thesis%20%22ethics%20as%20first,whose%20books%20reportedly%20sold%20well." rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d46"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Kant stated that “all the operations of the mind” (including all Kant’s own philosophising in metaphysics, epistemology, etc.) were nothing more than</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="87ed"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“means for </i>[the]<i> attainment </i>[of the]<i> ultimate end </i>[of]<i> moral philosophy”.</i></span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8cc4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There’s more — strictly philosophical — evidence of Kant’s religious and moral (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">a priori</em> when it came to his attempted destruction of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Ontological Argument</em></a> for the existence of God.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="342a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In this precise technical case, Kant attempted to demonstrate that the word <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7501/what-does-kant-mean-by-existence-is-not-a-predicate" href="https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7501/what-does-kant-mean-by-existence-is-not-a-predicate" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“‘exist’ is not a predicate”</a>. And, by doing so, he believed that the support underneath the Ontological Argument had been taken away. This backed up Kant’s prior (Protestant) Pietism in that “faith” (not proof, evidence or argument) became the true source of his religious and moral belief.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5538"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, I suspect that some readers won’t interpret Kant’s words as I’ve just done.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="78f4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about Philip Goff?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="af12"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relevantly (or ironically) enough, Goff himself once warned <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">other</em> philosophers and scientists against <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nd9dqFXHRU&t=1s" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nd9dqFXHRU&t=1s" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“believing what they want to believe”</a>.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>So that’s a good reason to quote a few passages from Goff himself (as found in the book <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Galileo’s Error</em>):</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e93a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I agree on the benefit of panpsychism to eco-philosophy, and have in the past made similar arguments.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="689d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The terrible mass destruction of forests we witnessed in Brazil in recent years under Bolsonaro, have a different moral character if we see them as the burning of conscious organisms.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="db02"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[Panpsychism] </span><i>entails that there is, in a certain sense, life after death.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c029"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To me at least, these passages speak for themselves.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="db68"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[There are another ten passages — of a very similar kind — from Goff which can be read in <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1 </strong>at the end of this essay.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9d16"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So does anyone write anything at all without motives of some kind?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="86b8" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Too Much Context?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5765"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="871" data-image-id="1*cVNuPrt_kP975uN4oxcn-Q.png" data-width="622" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*cVNuPrt_kP975uN4oxcn-Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3959"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps, then, this may be an argument against even mentioning such a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">universal</em> — thus, possibly banal — phenomenon. Wouldn’t it be like mentioning the fact that water is wet?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d29"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, most people do mention (or simply note) context. Analytic philosophers, on the other hand, generally don’t mention or write about context. (At least that’s part of the self-image of many analytic philosophers.) However, they too must still certainly think about such things.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b147"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps they wouldn’t deny this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9b4c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, they would say that contexts are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">irrelevant </em>to<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>philosophy itself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="06ad"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet there are, of course, dangers to citing contexts.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ecbb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Julian Baggini (who’ll be featured later in this essay) picked up on one example. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Do_They_Think_You_re_Stupid/uw5I0CI_zsoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Have+you+never,+in+an+immune+system-like+response,+repelled+a+view+that+contradicts+your+own+with+a+%27they+would+say%C2%A0that%27%3F%22&pg=PT101&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Do_They_Think_You_re_Stupid/uw5I0CI_zsoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Have+you+never,+in+an+immune+system-like+response,+repelled+a+view+that+contradicts+your+own+with+a+%27they+would+say%C2%A0that%27%3F%22&pg=PT101&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="aa10"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Have you never, in an immune system-like response, repelled a view that contradicts your own with a ‘they would say that’?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a61"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, if Philip Goff denied (or simply played down) all the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contexts</em> I’d highlighted, then all I’d need to say in response is: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">He would deny that. Wouldn’t he.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd6f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, all Goff (or one of his supporters) needs to say back is: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Paul Murphy would say that. Wouldn’t he.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cab2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More critically, my citations or examples of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context </em>may be false. They may be irrelevant. Or, in Baggini’s eyes, they may simply be<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>unfalsifiable.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="99d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, the main problem (at least in philosophy) is relying <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exclusively</em> on contexts, and also drawing too much out of them. Indeed, this approach too can be taken to extremes… as we’ll now see.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e6a5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="444" data-image-id="1*6uaoN_m-3S71jXeFTuabrQ.png" data-width="591" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*6uaoN_m-3S71jXeFTuabrQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Derrida on analytic philosophers and other philosophers.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="995f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following is an extreme example of someone relying on context, biography and someone’s supposed psychology in order to (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">escape from argument</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6f6a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American mathematician and physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Alan Sokal</a>,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the physicist and philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bricmont" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bricmont" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Jean Bricmont</a>, wrote<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(in their book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=...+Well%21+Lets+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant%2C+mediocre%2C+sexually+frustrated+scientists%2C+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+emslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist%2C+take+your+pick%29.+But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=...+Well%21+Lets+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant%2C+mediocre%2C+sexually+frustrated+scientists%2C+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+emslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist%2C+take+your+pick%29.+But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Intellectual Impostures</a>) the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22that+our+private+lives+%27merit+investigation%27%3A+%27What+do+they+like%3F+What+paintings+do+they+have+on+their+walls%3F+What+are+their+wives+like%3F+How+are+those+beautiful+abstract+statements+translated+in+their+daily+and+sexual+lives%3F%27+Well%21+Let%27s+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant%2C+mediocre%2C+sexually+frustrated+scientists%2C+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+enslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist%2C+take+your%C2%A0pick%29.%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22that+our+private+lives+%27merit+investigation%27%3A+%27What+do+they+like%3F+What+paintings+do+they+have+on+their+walls%3F+What+are+their+wives+like%3F+How+are+those+beautiful+abstract+statements+translated+in+their+daily+and+sexual+lives%3F%27+Well%21+Let%27s+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant%2C+mediocre%2C+sexually+frustrated+scientists%2C+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+enslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist%2C+take+your%C2%A0pick%29.%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a> on the French Critic and writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Sollers" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Sollers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philippe<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Sollers</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="192e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Philippe Sollers asserts </i>[] <i>that our private lives ‘merit investigation’: ‘What do they like? What paintings do they have on their walls? What are their wives like? How are those beautiful abstract statements translated in their daily and sexual lives?’</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d800"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sokal and Bricmont continued:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="58c9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Well! Let’s concede once and for all that we are arrogant, mediocre, sexually frustrated scientists, ignorant in philosophy and enslaved by a scientistic ideology (neoconservative or hard-line Marxist, take your pick).</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="eff4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But please tell us what this implies concerning the validity or invalidity of our arguments.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="338a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What can you say to people like Philippe Sollers?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5849"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, Sokal and Bricmont themselves<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> could</em> have responded by stating the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="c064"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I believe that Philippe Sollers’ private life merits investigation: What does he like? What paintings does he have on his walls? What is his wife like? How are Sollers’ psychoanalytic questions translated into his own daily and sexual life?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="47a1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this tangentially brings up the subjects of objectivity and bias.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b4e7" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Objectivity of a Free Market Think Tank</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="56f8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="534" data-image-id="1*k2giqKmgUesZEiLUF0vg8Q.png" data-width="815" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*k2giqKmgUesZEiLUF0vg8Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e855"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is a conundrum here, which the English philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baggini" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baggini" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Julian Baggini</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>captures with his own specific example. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+a+free+market+think+tank+reports+that+free+markets+are+a+good+thing%2C+we+might+at+least+question+the+objectivity+of+the+research.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-pqUT2QliyH9sj2vV-ORTHo1_Lqw%3A1709038597539&source=hp&ei=BdzdZdTkHpamhbIP3d2P6Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qFUrCa0fcj0c_Y3r7TV--4QNESwpF&ved=0ahUKEwiU-4v0yMuEAxUWU0EAHd3uA80Q4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22If+a+free+market+think+tank+reports+that+free+markets+are+a+good+thing%2C+we+might+at+least+question+the+objectivity+of+the+research.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoUBIklmIGEgZnJlZSBtYXJrZXQgdGhpbmsgdGFuayByZXBvcnRzIHRoYXQgZnJlZSBtYXJrZXRzIGFyZSBhIGdvb2QgdGhpbmcsIHdlIG1pZ2h0IGF0IGxlYXN0IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoZSBvYmplY3Rpdml0eSBvZiB0aGUgcmVzZWFyY2guIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+a+free+market+think+tank+reports+that+free+markets+are+a+good+thing%2C+we+might+at+least+question+the+objectivity+of+the+research.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-pqUT2QliyH9sj2vV-ORTHo1_Lqw%3A1709038597539&source=hp&ei=BdzdZdTkHpamhbIP3d2P6Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qFUrCa0fcj0c_Y3r7TV--4QNESwpF&ved=0ahUKEwiU-4v0yMuEAxUWU0EAHd3uA80Q4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22If+a+free+market+think+tank+reports+that+free+markets+are+a+good+thing%2C+we+might+at+least+question+the+objectivity+of+the+research.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoUBIklmIGEgZnJlZSBtYXJrZXQgdGhpbmsgdGFuayByZXBvcnRzIHRoYXQgZnJlZSBtYXJrZXRzIGFyZSBhIGdvb2QgdGhpbmcsIHdlIG1pZ2h0IGF0IGxlYXN0IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoZSBvYmplY3Rpdml0eSBvZiB0aGUgcmVzZWFyY2guIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7524"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If a free market think tank reports that free markets are a good thing, we might at least question the objectivity of the research.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="07bd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Baggini <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Nevertheless%2C+that+research+should+stand+or+fall+on+its+own%C2%A0merits.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-WFRHQ4Ame3ZHvxrwHb0y0bfbQTw%3A1709038628796&source=hp&ei=JNzdZZiYLqOohbIPub6swAI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qNEXAiouqMujQvTvoogZ4XL6BB6Mt&ved=0ahUKEwiYuv-CycuEAxUjVEEAHTkfCygQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Nevertheless%2C+that+research+should+stand+or+fall+on+its+own%C2%A0merits.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkYiTmV2ZXJ0aGVsZXNzLCB0aGF0IHJlc2VhcmNoIHNob3VsZCBzdGFuZCBvciBmYWxsIG9uIGl0cyBvd27CoG1lcml0cy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAKACAJgDAJIHAA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Nevertheless%2C+that+research+should+stand+or+fall+on+its+own%C2%A0merits.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-WFRHQ4Ame3ZHvxrwHb0y0bfbQTw%3A1709038628796&source=hp&ei=JNzdZZiYLqOohbIPub6swAI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qNEXAiouqMujQvTvoogZ4XL6BB6Mt&ved=0ahUKEwiYuv-CycuEAxUjVEEAHTkfCygQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Nevertheless%2C+that+research+should+stand+or+fall+on+its+own%C2%A0merits.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkYiTmV2ZXJ0aGVsZXNzLCB0aGF0IHJlc2VhcmNoIHNob3VsZCBzdGFuZCBvciBmYWxsIG9uIGl0cyBvd27CoG1lcml0cy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAKACAJgDAJIHAA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">concluded</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="312c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Nevertheless, that research should stand or fall on its own merits.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7876"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So surely the context here can’t be irrelevant.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9475"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, of course a “free market think tank” would report that “free markets are a good thing”. The clue, after all, is in the words “free market think tank”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9825"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[It can be supposed that — in theory at least— there could be such a free market think tank whose job it was to criticise the free market, question its very existence, etc.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="799e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="489" data-image-id="1*OB_jvW987tWvYaiH9jvkMA.png" data-width="693" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*OB_jvW987tWvYaiH9jvkMA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Julian Baggini</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="eefc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, what did Baggini mean by the word “objectivity”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c6b4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To state the obvious. A think tank which <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">criticised</em> this free market think tank wouldn’t be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objective</em> either. Similarly, if a free market think tank is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">by definition</em> lacking in objectivity, then surely the person criticising that think tank is lacking in objectivity too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f4de"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, even if everything this free market think tank states is true, accurate, and evidence-based, its reports and research would still be selective and issue-led. Similarly, a critic of this think tank may also offer truthful, accurate, or evidence-based criticisms of this think tank. Yet he too will be selective and issue-led.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So would <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any </em>think tank (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any</em> person) be truly objective on this subject? Indeed, what does that word “objective” even mean in this specific context?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f0d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps all this is precisely why Baggini concluded by saying that “research should stand or fall on its own merits”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="040c" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Abortion and Those Nazis Again!</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="22ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="452" data-image-id="1*6cpsSoZK54pHzyb247IYyw.png" data-width="753" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*6cpsSoZK54pHzyb247IYyw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f8e2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Nazis are often mentioned in order to place ideas and beliefs in some kind of (very negative) context. In extreme cases, this is — and it <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">should</em> be — classed as Godwin’s law.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="71cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Godwin%27s+law%2C+short+for+Godwin%27s+law+%28or+rule%29+of+Nazi+analogies%2C+is+an+Internet+adage+asserting%3A+%27As+an+online+discussion+grows+longer%2C+the+probability+of+a+comparison+involving+Nazis+or+Hitler+approaches+1.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-SjSg_FNI42kG1Nc_kK_3tZzHPgQ%3A1709038667778&source=hp&ei=S9zdZdK8LdW-hbIP6NavyAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qW3Y1qfyNk9NFux6vFIQL4v0oL9QD&ved=0ahUKEwiSjsuVycuEAxVVX0EAHWjrC0kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Godwin%27s+law%2C+short+for+Godwin%27s+law+%28or+rule%29+of+Nazi+analogies%2C+is+an+Internet+adage+asserting%3A+%27As+an+online+discussion+grows+longer%2C+the+probability+of+a+comparison+involving+Nazis+or+Hitler+approaches+1.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItIBIkdvZHdpbidzIGxhdywgc2hvcnQgZm9yIEdvZHdpbidzIGxhdyAob3IgcnVsZSkgb2YgTmF6aSBhbmFsb2dpZXMsIGlzIGFuIEludGVybmV0IGFkYWdlIGFzc2VydGluZzogJ0FzIGFuIG9ubGluZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGdyb3dzIGxvbmdlciwgdGhlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IG9mIGEgY29tcGFyaXNvbiBpbnZvbHZpbmcgTmF6aXMgb3IgSGl0bGVyIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgMS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAKACAJgDAJIHAA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Godwin%27s+law%2C+short+for+Godwin%27s+law+%28or+rule%29+of+Nazi+analogies%2C+is+an+Internet+adage+asserting%3A+%27As+an+online+discussion+grows+longer%2C+the+probability+of+a+comparison+involving+Nazis+or+Hitler+approaches+1.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0-SjSg_FNI42kG1Nc_kK_3tZzHPgQ%3A1709038667778&source=hp&ei=S9zdZdK8LdW-hbIP6NavyAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qW3Y1qfyNk9NFux6vFIQL4v0oL9QD&ved=0ahUKEwiSjsuVycuEAxVVX0EAHWjrC0kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Godwin%27s+law%2C+short+for+Godwin%27s+law+%28or+rule%29+of+Nazi+analogies%2C+is+an+Internet+adage+asserting%3A+%27As+an+online+discussion+grows+longer%2C+the+probability+of+a+comparison+involving+Nazis+or+Hitler+approaches+1.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItIBIkdvZHdpbidzIGxhdywgc2hvcnQgZm9yIEdvZHdpbidzIGxhdyAob3IgcnVsZSkgb2YgTmF6aSBhbmFsb2dpZXMsIGlzIGFuIEludGVybmV0IGFkYWdlIGFzc2VydGluZzogJ0FzIGFuIG9ubGluZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGdyb3dzIGxvbmdlciwgdGhlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IG9mIGEgY29tcGFyaXNvbiBpbnZvbHZpbmcgTmF6aXMgb3IgSGl0bGVyIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgMS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAKACAJgDAJIHAA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following account</a> of this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">law</em>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9c83"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Godwin’s law, short for Godwin’s law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting: ‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”</i></span></blockquote><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ffcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="479" data-image-id="1*QrdadI5YqBk-2WiCv-VjvQ.png" data-width="701" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*QrdadI5YqBk-2WiCv-VjvQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="79ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, we even have <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Reductio+ad+Hitlerum+%5B%5D%2C+also+known+as+playing+the+Nazi+card%2C+is+an+attempt+to+invalidate+someone+else%27s+argument+on+the+basis+that+the+same+idea+was+promoted+or+practised+by+Adolf+Hitler+or+the+Nazi+Party.+Arguments+can+be+termed+reductio+ad+Hitlerum+if+they+are+fallacious+%28e.g.%2C+arguing+that+because+Hitler+abstained+from+eating+meat+or+was+against+smoking%2C+anyone+else+who+does+so+is+a+Nazi%29.%C2%A0%5B%5D&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn08XoxYURIPZSnMvrquTMRxcOFE-wQ%3A1709038704331&source=hp&ei=cNzdZZH6EeWyhbIPzbWWuAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qgDyDLGr3ZIoT6qoQ7TG8l_FPS47J&ved=0ahUKEwiR8oGnycuEAxVlWUEAHc2aBYcQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Reductio+ad+Hitlerum+%5B%5D%2C+also+known+as+playing+the+Nazi+card%2C+is+an+attempt+to+invalidate+someone+else%27s+argument+on+the+basis+that+the+same+idea+was+promoted+or+practised+by+Adolf+Hitler+or+the+Nazi+Party.+Arguments+can+be+termed+reductio+ad+Hitlerum+if+they+are+fallacious+%28e.g.%2C+arguing+that+because+Hitler+abstained+from+eating+meat+or+was+against+smoking%2C+anyone+else+who+does+so+is+a+Nazi%29.%C2%A0%5B%5D&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Reductio+ad+Hitlerum+%5B%5D%2C+also+known+as+playing+the+Nazi+card%2C+is+an+attempt+to+invalidate+someone+else%27s+argument+on+the+basis+that+the+same+idea+was+promoted+or+practised+by+Adolf+Hitler+or+the+Nazi+Party.+Arguments+can+be+termed+reductio+ad+Hitlerum+if+they+are+fallacious+%28e.g.%2C+arguing+that+because+Hitler+abstained+from+eating+meat+or+was+against+smoking%2C+anyone+else+who+does+so+is+a+Nazi%29.%C2%A0%5B%5D&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn08XoxYURIPZSnMvrquTMRxcOFE-wQ%3A1709038704331&source=hp&ei=cNzdZZH6EeWyhbIPzbWWuAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qgDyDLGr3ZIoT6qoQ7TG8l_FPS47J&ved=0ahUKEwiR8oGnycuEAxVlWUEAHc2aBYcQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Reductio+ad+Hitlerum+%5B%5D%2C+also+known+as+playing+the+Nazi+card%2C+is+an+attempt+to+invalidate+someone+else%27s+argument+on+the+basis+that+the+same+idea+was+promoted+or+practised+by+Adolf+Hitler+or+the+Nazi+Party.+Arguments+can+be+termed+reductio+ad+Hitlerum+if+they+are+fallacious+%28e.g.%2C+arguing+that+because+Hitler+abstained+from+eating+meat+or+was+against+smoking%2C+anyone+else+who+does+so+is+a+Nazi%29.%C2%A0%5B%5D&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reductio ad Hitlerum</em></a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cbde"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Reductio ad Hitlerum </i>[]<i> also known as playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else’s argument on the basis that the same idea was promoted or practised by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. Arguments can be termed reductio ad Hitlerum if they are fallacious (e.g., arguing that because Hitler abstained from eating meat or was against smoking, anyone else who does so is a Nazi). </i>[]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Julian Baggini<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(again)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>picked up on this in the case of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.+But+it+is+still+something+of+a+shock+to+hear+him+compare+the+termination+of+foetal+life+with+Nazi+eugenics+programmes%2C+which+he+has+done+on+several+occasions.+In+the+quote+above+he+even+evokes+a+comparison+with+the+Holocaust+with+his+reference+to+%276+million%C2%A0lives%27.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn09JDLvm5jBlN_m9WPdNaAqxWH975w%3A1709038773967&source=hp&ei=tdzdZYL-N5qshbIPuse6uAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qxe7nkORhVEauHdR8rD4hMNEnXw0o&ved=0ahUKEwjCrJvIycuEAxUaVkEAHbqjDncQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.+But+it+is+still+something+of+a+shock+to+hear+him+compare+the+termination+of+foetal+life+with+Nazi+eugenics+programmes%2C+which+he+has+done+on+several+occasions.+In+the+quote+above+he+even+evokes+a+comparison+with+the+Holocaust+with+his+reference+to+%276+million%C2%A0lives%27.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.+But+it+is+still+something+of+a+shock+to+hear+him+compare+the+termination+of+foetal+life+with+Nazi+eugenics+programmes%2C+which+he+has+done+on+several+occasions.+In+the+quote+above+he+even+evokes+a+comparison+with+the+Holocaust+with+his+reference+to+%276+million%C2%A0lives%27.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn09JDLvm5jBlN_m9WPdNaAqxWH975w%3A1709038773967&source=hp&ei=tdzdZYL-N5qshbIPuse6uAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3qxe7nkORhVEauHdR8rD4hMNEnXw0o&ved=0ahUKEwjCrJvIycuEAxUaVkEAHbqjDncQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.+But+it+is+still+something+of+a+shock+to+hear+him+compare+the+termination+of+foetal+life+with+Nazi+eugenics+programmes%2C+which+he+has+done+on+several+occasions.+In+the+quote+above+he+even+evokes+a+comparison+with+the+Holocaust+with+his+reference+to+%276+million%C2%A0lives%27.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9b65"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Given that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is a Roman Catholic, it comes as no surprise to find that he is against abortion. But it is still something of a shock to hear him compare the termination of foetal life with Nazi eugenics programmes, which he has done on several occasions. In the quote above he even evokes a comparison with the Holocaust with his reference to ‘6 million lives’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e658"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Two paragraphs later, Baggini concluded with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+problem+with+guilt+by+association+is+that+it+fails+to+show+what+is+actually+wrong+with+the+thing+being+criticized.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn08BR6hFUGFGOPZ7DSxOarJ1TEjG4A%3A1709038810876&source=hp&ei=2tzdZYucM9W-hbIP6NavyAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3q6mpsnaqTIunnMniIf0s9Xg-QwJD3&ved=0ahUKEwiL8ejZycuEAxVVX0EAHWjrC0kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22The+problem+with+guilt+by+association+is+that+it+fails+to+show+what+is+actually+wrong+with+the+thing+being+criticized.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IngiVGhlIHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCBndWlsdCBieSBhc3NvY2lhdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IGl0IGZhaWxzIHRvIHNob3cgd2hhdCBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSB3cm9uZyB3aXRoIHRoZSB0aGluZyBiZWluZyBjcml0aWNpemVkLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+problem+with+guilt+by+association+is+that+it+fails+to+show+what+is+actually+wrong+with+the+thing+being+criticized.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn08BR6hFUGFGOPZ7DSxOarJ1TEjG4A%3A1709038810876&source=hp&ei=2tzdZYucM9W-hbIP6NavyAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3q6mpsnaqTIunnMniIf0s9Xg-QwJD3&ved=0ahUKEwiL8ejZycuEAxVVX0EAHWjrC0kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22The+problem+with+guilt+by+association+is+that+it+fails+to+show+what+is+actually+wrong+with+the+thing+being+criticized.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IngiVGhlIHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCBndWlsdCBieSBhc3NvY2lhdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IGl0IGZhaWxzIHRvIHNob3cgd2hhdCBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSB3cm9uZyB3aXRoIHRoZSB0aGluZyBiZWluZyBjcml0aWNpemVkLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e03a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The problem with guilt by association is that it fails to show what is actually wrong with the thing being criticized.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="688f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet perhaps things aren’t so simple.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3d7c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is there really such a rigid line between using “guilt by association” (or providing some kind of context), and “show[ing] what is actually wrong with the thing being criticized”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="720d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, a Catholic (or even a non-Catholic) may say that Baggini <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em> was using <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">guilt by association</em> when he wrote the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.%22&sca_esv=fc7c61e83823ecc2&sxsrf=ACQVn09BlXQDdFBGswisSeq4tvBD6iYQwA%3A1709076870183&source=hp&ei=hnHeZc_NCMWf5NoPovigwAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd5_llxPRwvWvvTVYhz9xiBY4qEPEvr9&ved=0ahUKEwjPqPS918yEAxXFD1kFHSI8CFgQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6In4iR2l2ZW4gdGhhdCBDYXJkaW5hbCBDb3JtYWMgTXVycGh5LU8nQ29ubm9yIGlzIGEgUm9tYW4gQ2F0aG9saWMsIGl0IGNvbWVzIGFzIG5vIHN1cnByaXNlIHRvIGZpbmQgdGhhdCBoZSBpcyBhZ2FpbnN0IGFib3J0aW9uLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.%22&sca_esv=fc7c61e83823ecc2&sxsrf=ACQVn09BlXQDdFBGswisSeq4tvBD6iYQwA%3A1709076870183&source=hp&ei=hnHeZc_NCMWf5NoPovigwAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd5_llxPRwvWvvTVYhz9xiBY4qEPEvr9&ved=0ahUKEwjPqPS918yEAxXFD1kFHSI8CFgQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Given+that+Cardinal+Cormac+Murphy-O%27Connor+is+a+Roman+Catholic%2C+it+comes+as+no+surprise+to+find+that+he+is+against+abortion.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6In4iR2l2ZW4gdGhhdCBDYXJkaW5hbCBDb3JtYWMgTXVycGh5LU8nQ29ubm9yIGlzIGEgUm9tYW4gQ2F0aG9saWMsIGl0IGNvbWVzIGFzIG5vIHN1cnByaXNlIHRvIGZpbmQgdGhhdCBoZSBpcyBhZ2FpbnN0IGFib3J0aW9uLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ab98"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Given that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is a Roman Catholic, it comes as no surprise to find that he is against abortion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d0e9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, a reader could now say:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="f760"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">But Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor </span>was<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> a Catholic! That’s just a fact.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f274"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about Baggini’s phrase “it comes as no surprise”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e22"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, a reader could say:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="d164"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Well, everyone knows that the Catholic Church is against abortion. So Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s position is indeed “no surprise”.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f00"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case and as already quoted, Baggini finished off by<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>saying that the</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d52d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“problem with guilt by association is that it fails to show what is actually wrong with the thing being criticized”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="837f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Baggini himself <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">associates</em> being against abortion with the Catholic Church, and he also fails to show what’s actually wrong with being against abortion…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c6d5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, that’s surely because the chapter these words are taken from isn’t actually about abortion.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="05f5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, the Catholic Church too has provided mountains of (good and bad) reasons as to why it believes abortion is morally wrong. It just happens to be the case that in the example cited by Baggini, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor did indeed rely exclusively on <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">guilt by associatio</em>n.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4f5e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So clearly this is complicated.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="04bf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, there may be very good reasons to associate abortion with what the Nazis did. Yet there may also be very good reasons to reject those reasons. The problem still is, however, that (guilt by) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">association</em> (or context generally) shouldn’t be exclusively relied on.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="55f8" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Nazis Believed Things Which Are True</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="040f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="497" data-image-id="1*JHj_y5jCpALWxIlEMfa6Ew.png" data-width="667" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*JHj_y5jCpALWxIlEMfa6Ew.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9577"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As we’ve seen<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">, </strong>Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor mentioned the Nazis. Many people do. Indeed, so too does Julian Baggini. However, Baggini did so in order to get his point across.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9644"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baggini <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Do_They_Think_You_re_Stupid/uw5I0CI_zsoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Nazis+were+very+keen+on+ecology,+forests,+public+rallies,+compulsory+gym+classes+and+keep+fit%E2%80%A6+Hitler+too+eschewed+meat.&pg=PT58&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Do_They_Think_You_re_Stupid/uw5I0CI_zsoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Nazis+were+very+keen+on+ecology,+forests,+public+rallies,+compulsory+gym+classes+and+keep+fit%E2%80%A6+Hitler+too+eschewed+meat.&pg=PT58&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4a86"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The Nazis were very keen on ecology, forests, public rallies, compulsory gym classes and keep fit. </i>[]<i> Hitler too eschewed meat.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7134"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, those who’re against ecology, vegetarianism, etc. could mention the Nazis and/or Hitler. (In fact they often do!) However, Baggini <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Nothing+is+bad+or+wrong+simply+because+the+hand+of+evil+has+touched%C2%A0it.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0_rFxnZoL35ta0WPJB3qij-eQUt1w%3A1709038910415&source=hp&ei=Pt3dZbnkFv_Sxc8PsviVoA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3rThIww3nt08NbJpxSvTVWlvQ5Rkv8&ved=0ahUKEwi5-6OJysuEAxV_afEDHTJ8BeQQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Nothing+is+bad+or+wrong+simply+because+the+hand+of+evil+has+touched%C2%A0it.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkoiTm90aGluZyBpcyBiYWQgb3Igd3Jvbmcgc2ltcGx5IGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGhhbmQgb2YgZXZpbCBoYXMgdG91Y2hlZMKgaXQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Nothing+is+bad+or+wrong+simply+because+the+hand+of+evil+has+touched%C2%A0it.%22&sca_esv=85af15397c77c0f6&sxsrf=ACQVn0_rFxnZoL35ta0WPJB3qij-eQUt1w%3A1709038910415&source=hp&ei=Pt3dZbnkFv_Sxc8PsviVoA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZd3rThIww3nt08NbJpxSvTVWlvQ5Rkv8&ved=0ahUKEwi5-6OJysuEAxV_afEDHTJ8BeQQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22Nothing+is+bad+or+wrong+simply+because+the+hand+of+evil+has+touched%C2%A0it.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkoiTm90aGluZyBpcyBiYWQgb3Igd3Jvbmcgc2ltcGx5IGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGhhbmQgb2YgZXZpbCBoYXMgdG91Y2hlZMKgaXQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continued</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0588"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Nothing is bad or wrong simply because the hand of evil has touched it.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f823"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s look at this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1399"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most (even all) Nazis would have believed that 2 + 2<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>equals<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>4. That doesn’t thereby stop 2 + 2 equalling 4. And neither does it make the equation bad.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="748b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet even outside simple beliefs about arithmetic this logic may still apply.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc7c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps, then, it would be wise to come down somewhere in the middle on this issue.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3553"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We shouldn’t believe that if a somehow culpable person states <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">P</em>, then that makes <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">P</em> false — or at least <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">probably false</em>. And neither should we believe<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> P</em> is false — or simply suspect — simply because it was articulated by a person at a certain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">suspect</em> point in history, or in a certain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">suspect</em> environment.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="e20a"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8b5d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Note:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="c10d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> Here are the passages from Philip Goff, which can mainly be found in his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/27/galileos-error-by-philip-goff-review" href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/27/galileos-error-by-philip-goff-review" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Galileo’s Error</em></a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6bc0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“My hope is that panpsychism can help humans once again to feel that they have a place in the universe. At home in the cosmos, we might begin to dream about — and perhaps make real — a better world.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="61ea"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Could our philosophical worldview be party responsible for inability to avert climate catastrophe?”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3c8c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The view of the mystics, in contrast, does provide a satisfying account of the objectivity of ethics… According to the testimony of mystics, it is this realization </i>[“formless consciousness”]<i> that results in the boundless compassion of the enlightened.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4d6a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It is no surprise that in this worldview </i>[“dualism” — Goff says almost identical things about “materialism” in these respects]<i> the act of tree hugging is mocked as sentimental silliness. Why would anyone hug a mechanism?”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0e22"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Panpsychism has a potential to transform our relationship with natural world.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="119b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>e now know that plants communicate, learn and remember. I can see no reason other than anthropic prejudice not to ascribe to them a conscious life of their own.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9439"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>t would be nice if reality as a whole was unified in a common purpose.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="810a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“… if they were taught to walk through a forest in the knowledge that they are standing amidst a vibrant community: a buzzing, busy network of mutual support and care.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="074d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> I also think that </i>[panpsychism]<i> is a theory of Reality somewhat more consonant with human happiness than rival views.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7359"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“For a child raised in a panpsychist worldview, hugging a conscious tree could be a natural and normal as stroking a cat.”</i></span></blockquote></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-21346267045427592492024-03-15T18:31:00.000-07:002024-03-15T18:31:43.802-07:00Philosophy: My Posts (or Tweets) on X (4)<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times;"> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(i) Psychedelic Heaven: Psychedelic Hell </span></strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="d9c8"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="cfa5"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(ii) Roger Penrose </span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Peer-Review My Tweets! </span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) “Does God Exist?” “Shut up!” </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Reductionism! </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Is Panpsychism an Affront to Science? </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Memorising Poems </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(viii) Epistemology Is…</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="1cc6"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="8aa0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Rather than reposting stuff, see the original introduction to my series of reposts from X <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/philosophy-my-posts-or-tweets-on-x-and-twitter" href="https://medium.com/philosophy-my-posts-or-tweets-on-x-and-twitter" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="1f60"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ad00" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Psychedelic Heaven: Psychedelic Hell</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f91d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="375" data-image-id="1*hMUFCyJuJVRSRGbIxS8tDw.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="772" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*hMUFCyJuJVRSRGbIxS8tDw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="0927"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">People seem to be divided into two extremes on this subject: (1) Those who believe that if everyone started taking psychedelics, then a universal Utopia would follow within a week or so. (2) Those who believe that psychedelics create eternal hell for<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> all </em>those who take these drugs, and hell in the larger society too…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5192"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, these are (slight) exaggerations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f705"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In most of the debates I’ve read and seen, the two tribes talked passed each other. I’m quite boring and unsexy on this. It depends on lots of factors, and on individuals. Personally, I’ve experienced both heaven and hell on psychedelics. That said, even some fans of psychedelics admit that hell is one route that people can go down.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="bad1" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Roger Penrose</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="66e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="574" data-image-id="1*C_cFCrkE9zFgQ21Gs1FeEA.png" data-width="718" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*C_cFCrkE9zFgQ21Gs1FeEA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="88cf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I have a hell of a lot of respect for the English mathematician, mathematical physicist, and Nobel Laureate <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Roger Penrose</a>. He tries his hardest to make his ideas <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%E2%80%9CEverything+should+be+made+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+no+simpler%E2%80%9D&sca_esv=41d00d5a24387526&sxsrf=ACQVn09QTfcW5pVcJ315YoowVpIqkGKUbQ%3A1708931127079&ei=NzjcZdi6BOS2hbIPsd-liAY&ved=0ahUKEwiYspnGuMiEAxVkW0EAHbFvCWEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=+%E2%80%9CEverything+should+be+made+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+no+simpler%E2%80%9D&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiRiDigJxFdmVyeXRoaW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSBtYWRlIGFzIHNpbXBsZSBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZSwgYnV0IG5vIHNpbXBsZXLigJ0yBBAAGB5IsCVQAFjRF3ABeACQAQCYAWegAb4BqgEDMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEB-AECmAIDoALgAagCFMICBBAjGCfCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIXEC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBiKBRiRAsICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhAQLhiABBiKBRhDGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIUEAAYgAQY4wQY6QQY6gIYtALYAQHCAhYQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGLQCGIwD2AECwgIZEAAYAxiPARjlAhjlAhjqAhi0AhiMA9gBApgDEroGBggBEAEYAboGBggCEAEYC5IHAzEuMg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%E2%80%9CEverything+should+be+made+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+no+simpler%E2%80%9D&sca_esv=41d00d5a24387526&sxsrf=ACQVn09QTfcW5pVcJ315YoowVpIqkGKUbQ%3A1708931127079&ei=NzjcZdi6BOS2hbIPsd-liAY&ved=0ahUKEwiYspnGuMiEAxVkW0EAHbFvCWEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=+%E2%80%9CEverything+should+be+made+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+no+simpler%E2%80%9D&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiRiDigJxFdmVyeXRoaW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSBtYWRlIGFzIHNpbXBsZSBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZSwgYnV0IG5vIHNpbXBsZXLigJ0yBBAAGB5IsCVQAFjRF3ABeACQAQCYAWegAb4BqgEDMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEB-AECmAIDoALgAagCFMICBBAjGCfCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIXEC4YgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBiKBRiRAsICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhAQLhiABBiKBRhDGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIUEAAYgAQY4wQY6QQY6gIYtALYAQHCAhYQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGLQCGIwD2AECwgIZEAAYAxiPARjlAhjlAhjqAhi0AhiMA9gBApgDEroGBggBEAEYAboGBggCEAEYC5IHAzEuMg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“as simple as possible, but not simpler”</a>. Yet many academics do the exact opposite of this. That is, they make their often banal or simple ideas seem complex and Deep.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b582"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, there’s much I disagree with when it comes to Penrose’s ideas and theories. But at least Penrose’s prose makes it possible for me to disagree with him… Not that I understand all the maths!</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="53df" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Peer-Review My Tweets!</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2dcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="212" data-image-id="1*SyPmNrhi2oixqq8fZrS_6w.png" data-width="776" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*SyPmNrhi2oixqq8fZrS_6w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a4e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I want my tweets (or posts) on X to be peer-reviewed.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5dc1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So here’s my plan.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0769"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m gonna get four of my mates (all of whom share most of my beliefs and values), and get them to peer-review them…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7521"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That should do the trick!</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="133f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="53bc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="467" data-image-id="1*PS0BKA6ulHYqrowdMIm2Eg.png" data-width="760" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*PS0BKA6ulHYqrowdMIm2Eg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="483f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m a pluralist, and no one should ever ever ever be allowed to express views which aren’t in support of pluralism.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3 graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bafd" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">“Does God Exist?” “Shut up!”</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="bc9d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="693" data-image-id="1*iHngPm8dh7uawX49ZFmsPQ.png" data-width="708" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*iHngPm8dh7uawX49ZFmsPQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="961d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I must confess that I grew bored with arguments both for the existence and for the non-existence of God roundabout the age of 20. This isn’t to claim that I, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">personally</em>, had “proved” that God exists or that he doesn’t exist. Instead, after hundreds of years or even longer, I simply couldn’t be bothered carrying on being part of that grinding debate.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9c25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That may sound smug…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7b90"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps it is.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cc6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, I suppose that each new generation has to be introduced to very-old debates. And I’m also sure that American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, and Wesleyan theologian <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig" rel="noopener" target="_blank">William Lane Craig</a> would crucify me on this subject anyway. (How does Mr Craig fair on non-religious subjects?)</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0636" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Reductionism!</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="07d2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="252" data-image-id="1*hZ-K6y5V0ACLAIWGTqwn8Q.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*hZ-K6y5V0ACLAIWGTqwn8Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="19af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most so-called “reductionists” don’t “break the world apart”. In specific cases of scientific theory and experiment, and more generally, scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">break things apart</em> because that’s been fantastically productive in science. However, that’s not “breaking the world apart” in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://twitter.com/JohnRGregg3" href="https://twitter.com/JohnRGregg3" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Gregg</a>’s poetic and rhetorical sense.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="a2f0" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Is Panpsychism an Affront to Science?</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="269b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="356" data-image-id="1*Nnwq8CXGh4yGQVOYA208Ig.png" data-width="760" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Nnwq8CXGh4yGQVOYA208Ig.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c0b9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Samuel posts a few critical words about <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">panpsychism</a> being deemed to be an “afront to science”. Yet he’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affronted</em> by that very “idea” that panpsychism should be an afront to science.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f9b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">All</em> scientists certainly do not believe that all philosophical positions are an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affront to science</em>. Sure, they believe that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> philosophical positions are. And panpsychism, at least for <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> scientists, is indeed such an affront.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2d07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, it’s not enough, then, to simply say “philosophy isn’t science”. That’s because scientists already know that. It’s true that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> scientists don’t like <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any</em> philosophy at all! But that’s not the issue here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ee1c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So read what scientists actually have to say on panpsychism. What they say be philosophically, scientifically and argumentatively convincing… or it may be crap.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c3ea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, panpsychism may (or may not) also be an affront to philosophy <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">itself</em>, and to much else. It depends.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="a19b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Memorising Poems</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d642"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="467" data-image-id="1*I85wFnNaqgAdinnX_vPh-w.png" data-width="775" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*I85wFnNaqgAdinnX_vPh-w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="75a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, it was the case in England too. I’ve met many people who were forced (or asked?) to memorise poems. I wasn’t. Perhaps that is one reason why I came to write poetry at various points in my life.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4f69"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I suppose the teachers believed that memorising poems was a sure way of getting their students to get to know and understand poetry. That said, acts of memorisation can often be — literally! - mindless.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="4155"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="54bb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="583" data-image-id="1*oESNS-vhZudV4yn5zcHukA.png" data-width="657" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*oESNS-vhZudV4yn5zcHukA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="46f0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oh my God!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3c60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This meme has been posted yet again. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Feynman</a>’s words, in the form of such Teen Memes, are posted (on X) six times before each breakfast.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3433" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Epistemology Is…</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5768"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="428" data-image-id="1*lxD4RR-ThcV32u-ryWdTqQ.png" data-width="747" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*lxD4RR-ThcV32u-ryWdTqQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f5e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not sure that epistemology “has to” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">do</em> any single specific <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">thing</em>. (Not even “explain errors”.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b3ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One philosopher may see <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> as being of vital and singular importance in epistemology. But another philosopher may see <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em> (i.e., something very different) as being of vital and singular importance too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3fea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, if epistemology deviates too far from — what? -, then it can’t be epistemology at all… surely.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="2597"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc72"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">My X account can be found </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">here</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">.</strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-78153635333044857332024-03-12T22:30:00.000-07:002024-03-12T22:30:23.503-07:00Philosophy: My Posts (or Tweets) on X (3)<p style="text-align: center;"> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Bernardo Kastrup: The YouTube Cult Leader </span></strong></p><section class="section section--body" name="3d70"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="0370"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(ii) Multiple Philosophy Memes on Twitter/X </span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Is Analytic Philosophy Isolated From Other Disciplines? </span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Stop Getting Nietzsche Wrong! </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) The Prose Style of Academics </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) The Context of Discovery and Context of Justification </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Do You Hate Academics?</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b6ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Rather than reposting stuff, see the original introduction <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/philosophy-my-posts-or-tweets-on-x-and-twitter" href="https://medium.com/philosophy-my-posts-or-tweets-on-x-and-twitter" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="58f1"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="843b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup: The YouTube Cult Leader</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0c79"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="548" data-image-id="1*ZmKIWWZYpiTLrSusT5TLvQ.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="701" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*ZmKIWWZYpiTLrSusT5TLvQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="bf31"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The idealist philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=32ce626ede8b9655&sxsrf=ACQVn0__b5G0zDqNqf4pFx7YVbu0GchNRw%3A1708473041534&source=hp&ei=0TrVZcuyHb2I9u8Pl_2a0AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdVI4Rwj-lI8KerAPY_kgvhPutRtzhhS&ved=0ahUKEwiL3_uFjruEAxU9hP0HHZe-BkoQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEijCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFsoAFsqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=32ce626ede8b9655&sxsrf=ACQVn0__b5G0zDqNqf4pFx7YVbu0GchNRw%3A1708473041534&source=hp&ei=0TrVZcuyHb2I9u8Pl_2a0AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdVI4Rwj-lI8KerAPY_kgvhPutRtzhhS&ved=0ahUKEwiL3_uFjruEAxU9hP0HHZe-BkoQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEijCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFsoAFsqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a> has done dozens — perhaps over a hundred — of interviews on YouTube. Almost all those people who interview him seem to be in awe of the man. They seem starstruck. They very rarely offer any criticisms of his ideas and theories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0e75"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, Kastrup is virtually ignored by all scientists and philosophers. This works well for his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Outsider-With-a-New-Worldview</em> persona. Yet Kastrup is also keen to mention that he’s “engaged” with “professional philosophers”. He has. It’s just that they virtually ignore him in their papers, books, etc. Indeed, I believe that a small number of philosophers have engaged with Kastrup simply because they know that he has a strong, large and dedicated (well) “following”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a309"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That may also explain why he has also abused so many academic philosophers and so many scientists. [See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/p/bee88bc404a" href="https://medium.com/p/bee88bc404a" target="_blank">‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’</a>.] Their supreme fault is that they simply don’t give Kastrup enough — or indeed any — time. However, on YouTube, Kastrup has legions of disciples who state embarrassing things about how they virtually worship every word he utters.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e943"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Kastrup is like a fish out out of water when he ventures outside his own cultish (idealist) echo chamber. And that’s why even Kastrup himself has said (on a number of occasions) that he regretted engaging with various <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">professional philosophers and scientists</em> outside his own charmed circle.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="d497"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="cc9b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="531" data-image-id="1*qLx8vY5WJF6bIYyamVFWvw.png" data-width="773" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*qLx8vY5WJF6bIYyamVFWvw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6116"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Are <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=philosophy%27s+Big+Questions&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn09-xxXciWCtXo85lHAo1ZJY3VM1DQ%3A1708624407866&ei=F4rXZca2NMahhbIP_6ajgA4&ved=0ahUKEwiGnor3wb-EAxXGUEEAHX_TCOAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=philosophy%27s+Big+Questions&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=philosophy%27s+Big+Questions&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn09-xxXciWCtXo85lHAo1ZJY3VM1DQ%3A1708624407866&ei=F4rXZca2NMahhbIP_6ajgA4&ved=0ahUKEwiGnor3wb-EAxXGUEEAHX_TCOAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=philosophy%27s+Big+Questions&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Big Questions</a> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">big questions</em> mainly because people keep on classing them as “big questions” — and thus they endlessly discuss them?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b3b3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What if some Big Questions are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">bogus questions</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c060"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/p/147e1944412c" href="https://medium.com/p/147e1944412c" target="_blank">‘Bogus Philosophical Questions’</a>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7feb" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Multiple philosophy memes on Twitter/X</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">.</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e694"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="498" data-image-id="1*3GeiW5BihprWKFvSPysPyQ.png" data-width="697" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*3GeiW5BihprWKFvSPysPyQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="99c9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is the gist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="35d2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This or that guy is famous. He’s also deemed to be an important philosopher or scientist. Therefore, every single sentence he ever uttered is deemed to be profound, deep, and worth turning into a X/Twitter meme.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="65e2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So here’s my own quote:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9b4c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Pass me that sandwich.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cc51"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Eddie+Elizabeth+Hitler&sca_esv=32ce626ede8b9655&sxsrf=ACQVn08xsjO_tiKh8_jPssqbYnfW6QenNA%3A1708473004031&source=hp&ei=qzrVZdG0PO_97_UP6Pil2AM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdVIvDB7gPatb2MqU5kYdRCE0dkfTOFM&ved=0ahUKEwiRtov0jbuEAxXv_rsIHWh8CTsQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Eddie+Elizabeth+Hitler&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZFZGRpZSBFbGl6YWJldGggSGl0bGVyMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSJsHUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWigAWiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Eddie+Elizabeth+Hitler&sca_esv=32ce626ede8b9655&sxsrf=ACQVn08xsjO_tiKh8_jPssqbYnfW6QenNA%3A1708473004031&source=hp&ei=qzrVZdG0PO_97_UP6Pil2AM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdVIvDB7gPatb2MqU5kYdRCE0dkfTOFM&ved=0ahUKEwiRtov0jbuEAxXv_rsIHWh8CTsQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Eddie+Elizabeth+Hitler&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZFZGRpZSBFbGl6YWJldGggSGl0bGVyMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSJsHUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWigAWiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Eddie Elizabeth Hitler</a></span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="608d" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Is Analytic Philosophy Isolated From Other Disciplines?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4ddb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="238" data-image-id="1*bBhXj7gfaCEfcEvTdrL3vA.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*bBhXj7gfaCEfcEvTdrL3vA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9224"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All academic disciplines “operate in isolation from all others” — to varying degrees. That’s true of physics, chemistry, economics, and even Critical Race Theory. (Do Critical Theorists spend much time studying physics, the philosophy of science, chemistry, or even history?) However, analytic philosophy alone seems to get it in face (from political activists, academic experts in “Continental philosophy”, etc.) for being “isolated” That’s odd — much analytic philosophy has also been classed as being “scientistic” and “materialist”. Yet it’s hard to be scientistic or materialist without paying at least some attention to scientific disciplines. And that’s exactly what analytic philosophers have done — dating back to, say, the 1920s!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea1f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I can hardly think of a single important analytic philosopher who has <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">isolate</em>d himself and his work from other disciplines. In late 20th century terms, many analytic philosophers also paid much attention to physics, biology, cognitive science, AI, mathematics, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="34c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps analytic philosophers isolate themselves only from the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">particular</em> disciplines that their (mainly academic) critics have in mind.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dae5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps analytic philosophers (as a whole) aren’t political enough in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">right kind</em> of political ways.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3055"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps they don’t do the same political things that their critics do.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="241e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps they don’t hold the same politics that their critics do.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c58a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And perhaps they don’t see philosophy as simply being just another political weapon — as some of their critics do.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6827"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whatever the case, analytic philosophy as a whole has certainly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">not</em> “operated in isolation from all other” disciplines. Sure, some <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">individual</em> analytic philosophers might have done so. But who cares about that!</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5795" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Stop Getting Nietzsche Wrong!</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0383"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="786" data-image-id="1*0J1VNQTduaEzckZN01GHNQ.png" data-width="763" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*0J1VNQTduaEzckZN01GHNQ.png" /></span></figure><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9c04"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“Stop getting Bond wrong!”</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d5d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Alan Partridge</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="86ac"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="272" data-image-id="1*gvfUc03drrJkeFtLhodwVg.gif" data-width="480" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*gvfUc03drrJkeFtLhodwVg.gif" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a6cd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Interpreting Nietzsche is like <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=interpreting+the+Bible&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn09yavp4kaNIAokA3FJc4nKoSn8XzA%3A1708624483007&source=hp&ei=YorXZYPhOOqnhbIPjqeE-AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYc0B4TfnyCnCGDcKucxzcFxO8dIFv&ved=0ahUKEwiDmvCawr-EAxXqU0EAHY4TAU8Q4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=interpreting+the+Bible&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZpbnRlcnByZXRpbmcgdGhlIEJpYmxlMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkj9WFAAWLlGcAB4AJABAJgBeKABvgOqAQM0LjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgcQABiABBgKwgIHEC4YgAQYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQABge&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=interpreting+the+Bible&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn09yavp4kaNIAokA3FJc4nKoSn8XzA%3A1708624483007&source=hp&ei=YorXZYPhOOqnhbIPjqeE-AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYc0B4TfnyCnCGDcKucxzcFxO8dIFv&ved=0ahUKEwiDmvCawr-EAxXqU0EAHY4TAU8Q4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=interpreting+the+Bible&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZpbnRlcnByZXRpbmcgdGhlIEJpYmxlMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkj9WFAAWLlGcAB4AJABAJgBeKABvgOqAQM0LjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgcQABiABBgKwgIHEC4YgAQYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQABge&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">interpreting the Bible</a>: everyone brings his or her own political, psychological, etc. baggage to the interpretation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cf57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is a war of all against all.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9757"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, people get very hot under the collar about certain “readings” of Nietzsche.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b2b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Everything just written also applies to Wittgenstein and Derrida. And it’s largely down to the prose styles of these philosophers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4cc4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, as a matter of interest, how would anyone get a philosopher like Nietzsche (or Derrida/Wittgenstein) right?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="812c" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Prose Style of Academics… and Postgraduates</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5552" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="282" data-image-id="1*rEkzwJaPUX6YAIjDdiMWHA.png" data-width="762" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*rEkzwJaPUX6YAIjDdiMWHA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="820d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A couple of commas would help in the tweet above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4a50"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, this isn’t a case of a quickly-written tweet. You also find it in many published academic papers. In fact, ultra-long sentences are part of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=academic+style&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0_8gyATiBn3KSl_ssno4lvSM38qfg%3A1708624529801&source=hp&ei=kYrXZfPwLsOwhbIPjvaGoAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYoVsymovzhM9a0spnxeyBTu7eIxXX&ved=0ahUKEwiz_Zqxwr-EAxVDWEEAHQ67AZQQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=academic+style&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig5hY2FkZW1pYyBzdHlsZTIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARI5AdQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZaABZaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=academic+style&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0_8gyATiBn3KSl_ssno4lvSM38qfg%3A1708624529801&source=hp&ei=kYrXZfPwLsOwhbIPjvaGoAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYoVsymovzhM9a0spnxeyBTu7eIxXX&ved=0ahUKEwiz_Zqxwr-EAxVDWEEAHQ67AZQQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=academic+style&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig5hY2FkZW1pYyBzdHlsZTIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARI5AdQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZaABZaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">academic style</a> — at least in some disciplines.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="25f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, the prose is either a self-conscious style or simply pure pretence — perhaps both.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8ede" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="54aa" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="331" data-image-id="1*q25Ch7imvOtGbnuFC1hWow.png" data-width="772" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*q25Ch7imvOtGbnuFC1hWow.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b11e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sam captures the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0-DnGE2Kpplv7HLvz5x4Kjbc8XpIw%3A1708624565957&source=hp&ei=tYrXZc-oOIq3hbIP2bGfyAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYxQ-mS9S8FJSeota25_tDiDrcamKC&ved=0ahUKEwiP17nCwr-EAxWKW0EAHdnYB1kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRjb250ZXh0IG9mIGRpc2NvdmVyeTIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I5QdQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBlAGgAZQBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0-DnGE2Kpplv7HLvz5x4Kjbc8XpIw%3A1708624565957&source=hp&ei=tYrXZc-oOIq3hbIP2bGfyAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeYxQ-mS9S8FJSeota25_tDiDrcamKC&ved=0ahUKEwiP17nCwr-EAxWKW0EAHdnYB1kQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRjb250ZXh0IG9mIGRpc2NvdmVyeTIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I5QdQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBlAGgAZQBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">context of discovery</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+justification&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0929U-jqfi5GFLWv5kuC2CTIfH00Q%3A1708624717208&source=hp&ei=TYvXZfSlCpOoxc8Pp721MA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeZXYl3gp64WSHPhvnjky5n_k0j3IbE&ved=0ahUKEwi0gMmKw7-EAxUTVPEDHadeDQYQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+justification&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihhjb250ZXh0IG9mIGp1c3RpZmljYXRpb24yCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCBAAGBYYHhgPMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGBYYHhgPSM0HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAXigAXiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+justification&sca_esv=15f8c5997f1624f4&sxsrf=ACQVn0929U-jqfi5GFLWv5kuC2CTIfH00Q%3A1708624717208&source=hp&ei=TYvXZfSlCpOoxc8Pp721MA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdeZXYl3gp64WSHPhvnjky5n_k0j3IbE&ved=0ahUKEwi0gMmKw7-EAxUTVPEDHadeDQYQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=context+of+justification&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihhjb250ZXh0IG9mIGp1c3RpZmljYXRpb24yCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCBAAGBYYHhgPMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGBYYHhgPSM0HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAXigAXiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">context of justification</a> distinction. It’s not a perfect distinction. And it may well be somewhat of an idealisation or simplification. However, there’s still lots going for it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8380"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, many popular-science writers (though not many scientists themselves) fixate on biography or the context of discovery. And philosophers, not scientists, formulated this distinction in the first place. Of course, most scientists would have been aware of this distinction. However, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> scientists, they’d never tackled it in any great detail.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="34d5" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Do You Hate Academics?</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2bac"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="302" data-image-id="1*e0SH81cJRIDe4dUHM5Q6Ng.png" data-width="788" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*e0SH81cJRIDe4dUHM5Q6Ng.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="d27f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not sure what Kevin M (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://sites.google.com/site/kevinmorrisphilosophy/" href="https://sites.google.com/site/kevinmorrisphilosophy/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kevin Morris</a>) means by “this app”. However, his question “Why the hate?” seems rhetorical.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb38"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does Kevin M mean that he doesn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">understand the criticisms of academics</em>? That he doesn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">agree with the criticisms of academic</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="811a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And why use the word “hate” at all?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e28c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does Kevin M <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">hate</em> the “haters”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5cf9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He may well say that he doesn’t. In that case, then, perhaps the critics of academics aren’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">haters</em> either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="99b2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, there are many reasons to criticise (i.e., not “hate”) academics. More accurately, there are many reasons to criticise (many) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> academics about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> issues. Perhaps Kevin M should educate himself about these reasons.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c6b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So academics aren’t “just figuring out the nature of things”, as Kevin M claims. In fact, they’re doing all sorts of good and bad things for all sorts of different reasons.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5f8f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="edca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="208" data-image-id="1*tPjEJhKi60GeBvMKafPpAw.png" data-width="753" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*tPjEJhKi60GeBvMKafPpAw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b62"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Among the many annoying literary tics of the sociologist and political activist<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_%28sociologist%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Steve Fuller</a> is his tendency to mistake his own rhetorical tweets, and his own obvious political commitments, for Deepness and Profundity.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="adab"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">My X account can be found </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">here</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">.</strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-40931836975864160952024-03-11T17:16:00.000-07:002024-03-11T17:16:08.228-07:00Nothing is Something: Some Heavy Philosophy<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*yi_I0LOhlcuVoz6G9r8x0g.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*yi_I0LOhlcuVoz6G9r8x0g.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="c549"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="a078"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) The Grammar of the Word “Nothing”</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) The History of Nothing</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Parmenides on Nothing</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Russell and Quine on Nothing</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Martin Heidegger on Nothing</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Graham Priest on Nothing</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="cfbf"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="7f51"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h4-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Opening Note</span></strong></h4><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b302"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="475" data-image-id="1*weJCJtT5UUTwSbyDgFDt-A.png" data-width="826" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*weJCJtT5UUTwSbyDgFDt-A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e863"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As will be seen throughout this essay, the word “nothing” has, at time, been capitalised in a Heideggerian (or Platonic) manner.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e81c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Why?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="718b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The statement</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="0345"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">It’s the case that really nothing is important.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fdee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">when expressed as, say, psychological and personal advice, is different to the statement</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="8f19"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">It’s the case that </span>nothing<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> is important.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a63d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">when expressed as a statement about ontology.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a7f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, I borrowed this capitalisation from<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>John D. Barrow. (He, presumably, capitalised the word “nothing” for roughly the same reason.)</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="84b2"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="8b98"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Nothing</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ab8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What is it?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cc94"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If we deal with the English word “nothing”, then, etymologically, it begins life simply as “no thing”. It’s also been defined as <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+complete+absence+of+anything%22&sca_esv=6a9cfcd5d693b1e0&sxsrf=ACQVn094sTVaYc1mKMxGD045OiHuzUfIfw%3A1708498962206&source=hp&ei=EqDVZea0CoPThbIPppWisAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdWuIqkO2z4zo20YBwLACP36fAz4aIe7&ved=0ahUKEwjmhfXN7ruEAxWDaUEAHaaKCGYQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22the+complete+absence+of+anything%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIidGhlIGNvbXBsZXRlIGFic2VuY2Ugb2YgYW55dGhpbmciMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIswlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBcKABcKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+complete+absence+of+anything%22&sca_esv=6a9cfcd5d693b1e0&sxsrf=ACQVn094sTVaYc1mKMxGD045OiHuzUfIfw%3A1708498962206&source=hp&ei=EqDVZea0CoPThbIPppWisAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdWuIqkO2z4zo20YBwLACP36fAz4aIe7&ved=0ahUKEwjmhfXN7ruEAxWDaUEAHaaKCGYQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22the+complete+absence+of+anything%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIidGhlIGNvbXBsZXRlIGFic2VuY2Ugb2YgYW55dGhpbmciMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIswlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBcKABcKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the complete absence of anything”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea4f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, even these basic beginnings are problematic.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5dd9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following four questions can now be asked:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="0cbe"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) “No thing” in which place?<br />(2) </span>No thing<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> at which time?<br />(3) The “complete absence of anything” everywhere? Or just somewhere?<br />Finally,<br />(4) The</span> complete absence of everything<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> at all times? Or just at certain times?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="78ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, why has Nothing been so important in philosophy and religion?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1a99"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The English cosmologist, theoretical physicist and mathematician <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John D. Barrow</a> (mentioned a moment ago) summed things up with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/355593/the-book-of-nothing-by-john-barrow/9781407072685" href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/355593/the-book-of-nothing-by-john-barrow/9781407072685" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9d4f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“So much for these snippets of nothing. They show us nothing more than there is a considerable depth and breath to the contemplation of Nothing.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="053c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We’ll see that the “considerable depth and breadth” on the subject of Nothing may well be largely down to the grammar of the word “nothing”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0bfc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To put that another way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps there is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">considerable depth and breadth </em>to Nothing because the word “nothing” is used in so many different ways by so many different people. This effectively means that Nothing can’t really be something specific even when believed to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">considerably deep and wide</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c61f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">John Barrow also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Book_Of_Nothing/ZYL6bO0MpTUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Eastern+philosophies+provided+habits+of+thought+in+which+the+idea+of+Nothing-as-something+was+simple+to+grasp+and+not+only+negative+in+its+ramifications%22&pg=PP12&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Book_Of_Nothing/ZYL6bO0MpTUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Eastern+philosophies+provided+habits+of+thought+in+which+the+idea+of+Nothing-as-something+was+simple+to+grasp+and+not+only+negative+in+its+ramifications%22&pg=PP12&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b71a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Eastern philosophies provided habits of thought in which the idea of Nothing-as-something was simple to grasp and not only negative in its ramifications”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c1ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This claim almost entirely depends on what Eastern philosophers took Nothing to be. After all, it turns out that they meant something very different by the word “nothing” to what many Western philosophers meant — and still mean. Indeed, “nothing” is such a problematic word (at least when tackled philosophically) that different Eastern philosophers themselves will have meant different things by the word “nothing” (i.e., when this word is suitably translated into the relevant languages).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f15b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, what’s just been said about the word “nothing” is also true of the words “consciousness”, “freedom”, “truth”,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>“justice”,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>“existence”, etc. Indeed, it’s likely that “nothing” is even more problematic than these well-known<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>cases.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7fbc" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Grammar of the Word “Nothing”</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="fac8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="542" data-image-id="1*nE4ceCLW8hTP1gVTAzPpjg.png" data-width="1014" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*nE4ceCLW8hTP1gVTAzPpjg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e82d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">John Barrow waxes even more lyrically about Nothing in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22At+first%2C+such+questions+about+the+meaning+of+Nothing+seemed+hard%2C+then+they+appeared+unanswerable%2C+and+then+they+appeared+meaningless%3A+questions+about+Nothing+weren%27t+questions+about+anything.%22&sca_esv=da34223ad1e5cd33&source=hp&ei=GV7TZfewM8yZhbIP_f2M-AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdNsKa1-tJaOx08HBQ699zfh8sRa-p0o&ved=0ahUKEwi3ofe0x7eEAxXMTEEAHf0-Ay8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22At+first%2C+such+questions+about+the+meaning+of+Nothing+seemed+hard%2C+then+they+appeared+unanswerable%2C+and+then+they+appeared+meaningless%3A+questions+about+Nothing+weren%27t+questions+about+anything.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsMBIkF0IGZpcnN0LCBzdWNoIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyBvZiBOb3RoaW5nIHNlZW1lZCBoYXJkLCB0aGVuIHRoZXkgYXBwZWFyZWQgdW5hbnN3ZXJhYmxlLCBhbmQgdGhlbiB0aGV5IGFwcGVhcmVkIG1lYW5pbmdsZXNzOiBxdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgTm90aGluZyB3ZXJlbid0IHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhYm91dCBhbnl0aGluZy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22At+first%2C+such+questions+about+the+meaning+of+Nothing+seemed+hard%2C+then+they+appeared+unanswerable%2C+and+then+they+appeared+meaningless%3A+questions+about+Nothing+weren%27t+questions+about+anything.%22&sca_esv=da34223ad1e5cd33&source=hp&ei=GV7TZfewM8yZhbIP_f2M-AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdNsKa1-tJaOx08HBQ699zfh8sRa-p0o&ved=0ahUKEwi3ofe0x7eEAxXMTEEAHf0-Ay8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22At+first%2C+such+questions+about+the+meaning+of+Nothing+seemed+hard%2C+then+they+appeared+unanswerable%2C+and+then+they+appeared+meaningless%3A+questions+about+Nothing+weren%27t+questions+about+anything.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsMBIkF0IGZpcnN0LCBzdWNoIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyBvZiBOb3RoaW5nIHNlZW1lZCBoYXJkLCB0aGVuIHRoZXkgYXBwZWFyZWQgdW5hbnN3ZXJhYmxlLCBhbmQgdGhlbiB0aGV5IGFwcGVhcmVkIG1lYW5pbmdsZXNzOiBxdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgTm90aGluZyB3ZXJlbid0IHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhYm91dCBhbnl0aGluZy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9d0e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“At first, such questions about the meaning of Nothing seemed hard, then they appeared unanswerable, and then they appeared meaningless: questions about Nothing weren’t questions about anything.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="14c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps much of this “paradoxical” and heavy stuff is largely down to grammar.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="448b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes! This view is very old-fashioned.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="67ff"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Most other philosophical positions are also old-fashioned.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9152"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s old-fashioned because it dates back (in various ways) to Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“ordinary-language” philosophers</a>, etc. Of course, all these Dead Philosophers made their points about grammar, language and philosophy in very different ways. Indeed, I make my own points in my own way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0f07"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[For example, I have a problem with the logical positivists’ term “meaningless”. See later section.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a939"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, Nothing <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">may well</em> be meaty and profound for the simple reason that it has featured so strongly in philosophy, theology and even in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Physical_cosmology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Physical_cosmology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">physical cosmology</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fc93"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, despite that acknowledgment, perhaps the old questions about Nothing were (to use Barrow’s word again) “hard” primarily because of the grammar of the word “nothing”. Indeed, as Wittgenstein put it (in his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Philosophical Investigations</em></a>) about many other words pained over by philosophers for hundreds of years, when it comes to the word “nothing” (in this case), the following can be stated:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5bd7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“A whole cloud of philosophy </i>[is]<i> condensed into a drop of grammar.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4c72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, sentences with the word “nothing” in it, and questions about Nothing, can’t be “meaningless” for the simple reason that they may not be questions about Nothing itself. Instead, they may largely be about the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">word</em> “nothing”, as well as about how people use that word.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e96b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The History of Nothing</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d149"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="402" data-image-id="1*Ve1CrBwlgdAS6ExQzUVhoA.png" data-width="845" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Ve1CrBwlgdAS6ExQzUVhoA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="95ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to traditional<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Christianity, God created the world out of Nothing.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Interestingly,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>John the Scot (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriugena" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriugena" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Johannes Scotus Eriugena">Johannes Scotus Eriugena</a> — c. 815–877) argued that the word “nothing” (in this context at least) is synonymous with “God”. [Thus, God created the world out of God?]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c256"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Eriugena’s position displays the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">semantic reality </em>of this overall issue.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9359"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about other philosophers?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e594"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Philosophers have denied that Nothing “exists”, and also stated that it does exist. Other philosophers have seen the entire issue of Nothing as a non-problem — or even as a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22pseudo-problem%22&sca_esv=6a9cfcd5d693b1e0&sxsrf=ACQVn0-jnitY5P7UU_O1Jo-PCrVMXbNmNA%3A1708499357012&source=hp&ei=nKHVZZrLO7CxhbIP5s2T2Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdWvrWQf_rL-qyHNwjhrh7zIjeIm0W4l&ved=0ahUKEwiaiZaK8LuEAxWwWEEAHebmBHsQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22pseudo-problem%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhAicHNldWRvLXByb2JsZW0iMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgYQABgeGA8yCBAAGAUYHhgPMggQABgFGB4YDzIGEAAYCBgeMgYQABgIGB4yBhAAGAgYHkiOB1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFgoAFgqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22pseudo-problem%22&sca_esv=6a9cfcd5d693b1e0&sxsrf=ACQVn0-jnitY5P7UU_O1Jo-PCrVMXbNmNA%3A1708499357012&source=hp&ei=nKHVZZrLO7CxhbIP5s2T2Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdWvrWQf_rL-qyHNwjhrh7zIjeIm0W4l&ved=0ahUKEwiaiZaK8LuEAxWwWEEAHebmBHsQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22pseudo-problem%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhAicHNldWRvLXByb2JsZW0iMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgYQABgeGA8yCBAAGAUYHhgPMggQABgFGB4YDzIGEAAYCBgeMgYQABgIGB4yBhAAGAgYHkiOB1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFgoAFgqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“pseudo-problem”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3bf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On another tangent. This philosophical and religious (as it were) interest in Nothing has been at least partly down to the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Horror vacui (physics)"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">horror vacui</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">.</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> (</em></strong>Put in plain English,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong>the idea that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22nature+abhors+a+vacuum%22&sca_esv=d3c1b391243a2b45&sxsrf=ACQVn0-5b1zj_mnyWinE-ZLR8CbDrEXpMw%3A1708792442252&source=hp&ei=ehraZYKuDJm0hbIP_IiBoA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdooinZ8hiFk0Gg9OvjKFPfc_waaBKya&ved=0ahUKEwiC04z0s8SEAxUZWkEAHXxEANQQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=%22nature+abhors+a+vacuum%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgibmF0dXJlIGFiaG9ycyBhIHZhY3V1bSIyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBgUGIcCMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARI9AhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWqABWqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgGgAmaYAwCSBwMwLjE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22nature+abhors+a+vacuum%22&sca_esv=d3c1b391243a2b45&sxsrf=ACQVn0-5b1zj_mnyWinE-ZLR8CbDrEXpMw%3A1708792442252&source=hp&ei=ehraZYKuDJm0hbIP_IiBoA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdooinZ8hiFk0Gg9OvjKFPfc_waaBKya&ved=0ahUKEwiC04z0s8SEAxUZWkEAHXxEANQQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=%22nature+abhors+a+vacuum%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgibmF0dXJlIGFiaG9ycyBhIHZhY3V1bSIyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBgUGIcCMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARI9AhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWqABWqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgGgAmaYAwCSBwMwLjE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“nature abhors a vacuum”</a>.) An early version of this was displayed by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Leucippus">Leucippus</a> (early 5th century BC). To <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Leucippus">Leucippus</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Void_(philosophy)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Void_%28philosophy%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the void”</a> is the opposite of Being. In other words, the void is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">not-Being</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9d77"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It should also be quickly noted here that, historically, many scientists believed that (empty) space is not “nothing”. Instead, they deemed it to be some kind of receptacle in which “material objects can be placed”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5bc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relatedly, scientists have also been much obsessed by the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_understanding" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_understanding" rel="noopener" target="_blank">vacuum</a> (or by vacuums-in-the-plural).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="84b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet a vacuum (like the void) was always something very<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>different from Nothing…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2562"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or was it?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="db6a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It depends…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="97e8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It depends on what the words “nothing” and “vacuum” are taken to mean in different contexts. It also depends on how these words are actually used.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8991"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>problem is captured in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+is+somewhat+reminiscent+of+early+philosophical+plenum+ideas%2C+and+means+that+vacuum+and+nothing+are+certainly+not+synonyms.%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PGexg71L-1v7QMj3QhcTkYpwmyw%3A1708563834371&source=hp&ei=ep3WZdShFPaD9u8PtYyFwAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdarinjwZLZ4p5nmHkxwgEqS2nehxKl7&ved=0ahUKEwjUxq-j4L2EAxX2gf0HHTVGAWgQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22This+is+somewhat+reminiscent+of+early+philosophical+plenum+ideas%2C+and+means+that+vacuum+and+nothing+are+certainly+not+synonyms.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoEBIlRoaXMgaXMgc29tZXdoYXQgcmVtaW5pc2NlbnQgb2YgZWFybHkgcGhpbG9zb3BoaWNhbCBwbGVudW0gaWRlYXMsIGFuZCBtZWFucyB0aGF0IHZhY3V1bSBhbmQgbm90aGluZyBhcmUgY2VydGFpbmx5IG5vdCBzeW5vbnltcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+is+somewhat+reminiscent+of+early+philosophical+plenum+ideas%2C+and+means+that+vacuum+and+nothing+are+certainly+not+synonyms.%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PGexg71L-1v7QMj3QhcTkYpwmyw%3A1708563834371&source=hp&ei=ep3WZdShFPaD9u8PtYyFwAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdarinjwZLZ4p5nmHkxwgEqS2nehxKl7&ved=0ahUKEwjUxq-j4L2EAxX2gf0HHTVGAWgQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22This+is+somewhat+reminiscent+of+early+philosophical+plenum+ideas%2C+and+means+that+vacuum+and+nothing+are+certainly+not+synonyms.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoEBIlRoaXMgaXMgc29tZXdoYXQgcmVtaW5pc2NlbnQgb2YgZWFybHkgcGhpbG9zb3BoaWNhbCBwbGVudW0gaWRlYXMsIGFuZCBtZWFucyB0aGF0IHZhY3V1bSBhbmQgbm90aGluZyBhcmUgY2VydGFpbmx5IG5vdCBzeW5vbnltcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a> about a related issue:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9d79"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This is somewhat reminiscent of early philosophical plenum ideas, and means that vacuum and nothing are certainly not synonyms.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e0f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The word “vacuum” isn’t an acceptable synonym of the word “nothing” simply because there’s no fixed (or universal) definition of that latter word in the first place. And now we must also go all ontological and say that the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">nature</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">of Nothing</em> has been disputed for over two thousand years.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c48a" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Parmenides on Nothing</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d5af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="677" data-image-id="1*RanxFvoxcC-STvF44e5FNg.png" data-width="520" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*RanxFvoxcC-STvF44e5FNg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a1f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s best to start with the following philosophical position:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="cad0"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In order to refer to something, then that something must exist in some way.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b39"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Greek philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Parmenides</a> (5th century BC) based his philosophy of Nothingness primarily on such a basic position.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8fe9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenides.pdf" href="http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenides.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Parmenides argued that there can be no such thing as nothing</a> for the simple reason that to name it means that it must exist. And Nothing (unlike a stone or a person), he believed, can’t exist.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="79d1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="425" data-image-id="1*v_zFe9Od87df-aH0oxLcYw.png" data-width="825" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*v_zFe9Od87df-aH0oxLcYw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">John D. Barrow</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3823"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">John Barrow picked up on this when he<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Nothing-John-D-Barrow/dp/0099288451" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Nothing-John-D-Barrow/dp/0099288451" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1e7f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Parmenides]<i> maintained that you can only speak about what is: what is not cannot be thought of, and what cannot be thought of cannot be.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="77ff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Light-heartedly, and to rely on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/313956.The_Book_of_Nothing" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/313956.The_Book_of_Nothing" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Barrow again</a>, if Parmenides<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>was right, then what about the following limerick by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hughes_Mearns" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hughes_Mearns" rel="noopener" target="_blank">William Hughes Mearns</a>? -</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9885"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“As I was going up the stair, <br />I met man who wasn’t there. <br />He wasn’t there again today, <br />I wish, I wish he’d stay away.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="018c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Less light-heartedly, what about this statement? —</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="1ab1"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Superman is sexy!</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a33"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or this one? —</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="de1f"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">God does not exist.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5e2e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It seems obvious that we <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">can</em> refer to things which no longer exist. Indeed, we can even refer to things which never existed.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2add"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, perhaps we can’t refer in any ordinary way… That’s if there is an ordinary way of referring.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="225b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">existence</em> must be replaced by some kind of (capitalised) Being.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a1bc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[The distinction between being and existence has been rejected by many philosophers. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence" href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Being and Existence’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="62d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, in the cases of “Superman is sexy!” and other statements, neither existence nor Being are claimed in any direct way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a1a1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about the word “nothing”?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d179"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or what about Nothing <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">itself</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="41d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to this logic (or perhaps not), if we speak of “nothing”, then surely nothing must be… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">something</em>. After all, we’ve named Nothing. Therefore it must exist (or have Being) as a… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">something</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cb5e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Alternatively put, I’ve used the word “nothing”. Therefore Nothing (not the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">word</em> “nothing”) must exist (or have Being).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7711"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s now go into more detail on Parmenides and his arguments.</span></p><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="03ce"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h4-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Parmenides’s Argument</span></strong></h4><p class="graf graf--p" name="924a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Parmenides’ own positions are more convincing than they may at first seem.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="54c9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his scheme, not only is Nothing rejected, so too is the existence of historical facts or history itself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5a6c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The possibility of<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>change is similarly rejected.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="57f3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following are three of his basic positions (i.e., it’s not an argument as such) on Nothing:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="fb8f"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">1) Nothing doesn’t exist.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="e8b3"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">2) To speak of a </span>thing<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">, is to speak of a thing which exists.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="aca0"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">3) When one speaks of Nothing, one speaks of it as if it is </span>something<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> which exists.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f86f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet surely, in statements (1) to (3), Nothing has been spoken of (it has been <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">named</em>). Therefore, by Parmenides’s own light, surely either Nothing must exist, or he had no right to speak of it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ad8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What about the events in the past or the past itself?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f409"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Parmenides’s position is very similar:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="7d27"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">i) If we can’t speak of (or name) Nothing,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="b680"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ii) then we can’t speak of (or name) the things or events of the past either.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="9be6"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">iii) That’s because such events (or </span>things<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">) don’t exist.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="6f3f"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">iv) Therefore, when we refer to them, we’re referring to Nothing.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b7de"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here again there are references to Nothing, which Parmenides warned us against.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f3e9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What about change, which Parmenides similarly rejected?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a856"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">His rejection of change is strongly connected to his rejection of the past. The argument is as follows:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="c760"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ia) If the past doesn’t exist,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="00f2"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ib) then only the present exists.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="1f4d"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">iia) Yet if only the present exists,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="ef99"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">iib) then there can be no change from past to present, or from present to future.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="058b"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">iii) Therefore, there can be no change at all.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3a61"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not entirely sure if I’ve done justice to Parmenides in the formulations above. Alternatively, perhaps there’s a problem with the arguments themselves.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="954d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[It’s hard to find Parmenides’s actual words, rather than writers and historians telling their readers what Parmenides believed.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0679"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Firstly, i) (“The past doesn’t exist”) is taken to true with proof, argument, evidence, etc. That said, most arguments must — and do — begin with unargued-for premises. Perhaps this is an example of that.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1a43"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And there’s also the problem with the word “exist”. It’s never defined. Its meaning is simply assumed.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4997"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, it seems that Parmenides’ position was resurrected — if in a modified and grammatical (or linguistic) form — in the 20th century by Bertrand Russell.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f08a" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Russell and Quine on Nothing</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8c21"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="498" data-image-id="1*j5yK5VLuSDjZ0V24ME9PQw.png" data-width="432" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*j5yK5VLuSDjZ0V24ME9PQw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="693a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his 1918 paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSEAD" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSEAD" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Existence and Description’</a>, Bertrand Russell argued that in order for names to be names, then they must name — or refer to — things which exist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a1ef"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.bethunecollege.ac.in/heritagejournal/journals/heritageJournalVolI2014/articles2014/On-NameDescriptionsAndExistence-Heritage2014.pdf" href="http://www.bethunecollege.ac.in/heritagejournal/journals/heritageJournalVolI2014/articles2014/On-NameDescriptionsAndExistence-Heritage2014.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="02cc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The fact that you can discuss the proposition ‘God exists’ is a proof that ‘God’, as used in that proposition, is a description not a name. If ‘God’ were a name, no question as to existence could arise.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d7b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage delivers a position that’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">fairly</em> similar to Parmenides’s own position. Russell’s argument, however, is different in that it’s based on language and semantics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="766a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail. Russell, at the time, was reacting to the (as Quine once put it) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22ontological+slums%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn09ZaEvZsMeG6jttiBV53ybiZCRl3g%3A1708564890570&source=hp&ei=mqHWZejQIIXZ7_UPrJK6kA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdavqinxtFFHztYkQCzXvTO34nNGkyCh&ved=0ahUKEwjohYGb5L2EAxWF7LsIHSyJDvIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22ontological+slums%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhMib250b2xvZ2ljYWwgc2x1bXMiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIxQ1QAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBhwGgAYcBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22ontological+slums%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn09ZaEvZsMeG6jttiBV53ybiZCRl3g%3A1708564890570&source=hp&ei=mqHWZejQIIXZ7_UPrJK6kA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdavqinxtFFHztYkQCzXvTO34nNGkyCh&ved=0ahUKEwjohYGb5L2EAxWF7LsIHSyJDvIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22ontological+slums%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhMib250b2xvZ2ljYWwgc2x1bXMiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIxQ1QAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBhwGgAYcBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“ontological slums”</a> of the Austrian philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Alexius Meinong</a> in which different objects and things were brought into being willy-nilly. (For example, the golden mountain and even <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistent_objects" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistent_objects" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the round square</a>.) However, Russell’s semantic philosophy simply seems stipulative (or a normative) in nature. That is, it’s strategically designed to quickly solve various ancient and modern philosophical problems. [Personally, I don’t have much time for Russell’s position of 1918.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ff40"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is where<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> W.V.O. Quine</a> enters the philosophical fray.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="c436"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="441" data-image-id="1*fmOOptgsbWSd5fbjeCVKEg.png" data-width="843" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*fmOOptgsbWSd5fbjeCVKEg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="569a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Quine had no problem at all with the naming of non-beings or non-existents. (Non-being and non-existence aren’t the same thing.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4200"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/Phil209/Quine%20-%20On%20What%20There%20Is.pdf" href="https://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/Phil209/Quine%20-%20On%20What%20There%20Is.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘On What There Is’</a> of 1948 (some 30 years after Russell’s paper), Quine rejected Russell’s position. However, he put Russell’s position in the mouth of a certain McX, and uses the word ‘Pegasus’ rather than the word ‘God’.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2bee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Quine <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Metaphysics/SkyJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22He+confused+the+alleged+named+object+Pegasus+with+the+meaning+of+the+word+%27Pegasus%27,+therefore+concluding+that+Pegasus+must+be+in+order+that+the+word+have+meaning.%22&pg=PA11&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Metaphysics/SkyJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22He+confused+the+alleged+named+object+Pegasus+with+the+meaning+of+the+word+%27Pegasus%27,+therefore+concluding+that+Pegasus+must+be+in+order+that+the+word+have+meaning.%22&pg=PA11&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ee96"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“He confused the alleged named object Pegasus with the meaning of the word ‘Pegasus’, therefore concluding that Pegasus must be in order that the word have meaning.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="614f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Put simply. A name can have a “meaning” without it <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">referring</em> to something which exists, or even to something which never existed. Thus, Quine unties meaning from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference" rel="noopener" target="_blank">reference</a>, whereas Russell primarily thought in terms of reference. (At the least, Russell tied a name’s meaning to its reference.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="34b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Parmenides, as we’ve seen, made a similar mistake.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9578"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He didn’t think that a name could have a meaning without <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the thing being named</em> also existing (or Being). However, we can speak of something that doesn’t exist because the naming of such an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> doesn’t entail or imply its existence. However, and in homage to Meinong (as well as, perhaps, to the philosopher David Lewis), Russell might then have asked us what kind of Being<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>the named object (or thing) has.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="38c5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Technically, Russell’s theory is an attempt to solve this problem by arguing that if a named <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> doesn’t exist (or have Being), then that name must be a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22disguised+description%22&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-JU8odYpl_qZOpdERfsqZ8qCiegw%3A1708699470972&source=hp&ei=Tq_YZfTZOL6jkdUPrYmR2Ao&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdi9XjYTP6o2KtZuawDx3PYZUdKC2tcF&ved=0ahUKEwj0uPjH2cGEAxW-UaQEHa1EBKsQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=%22disguised+description%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhciZGlzZ3Vpc2VkIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI_wlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWqABWqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22disguised+description%22&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-JU8odYpl_qZOpdERfsqZ8qCiegw%3A1708699470972&source=hp&ei=Tq_YZfTZOL6jkdUPrYmR2Ao&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdi9XjYTP6o2KtZuawDx3PYZUdKC2tcF&ved=0ahUKEwj0uPjH2cGEAxW-UaQEHa1EBKsQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=%22disguised+description%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhciZGlzZ3Vpc2VkIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI_wlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWqABWqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“disguised description”</a> or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=denoting+phrase&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ZNpBH6dmmA7gfDImGUslnQAGOBw%3A1708699474576&ei=Uq_YZZLbItuuhbIPrd6okAo&ved=0ahUKEwiSzNbJ2cGEAxVbV0EAHS0vCqIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=denoting+phrase&gs_lp=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-QHCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAioQABiABBiKBRiRAhhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQPCAhMQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxhGGPkBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQPCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICLRAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA8ICChAAGIAEGEYY-QHCAgoQABiABBgKGLEDwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICJBAAGIAEGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA8ICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEYY-QHCAicQABiABBixAxhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQPCAggQABgWGB4YCogGAZAGAroGBggBEAEYAboGBggCEAEYC7oGBggDEAEYEw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=denoting+phrase&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ZNpBH6dmmA7gfDImGUslnQAGOBw%3A1708699474576&ei=Uq_YZZLbItuuhbIPrd6okAo&ved=0ahUKEwiSzNbJ2cGEAxVbV0EAHS0vCqIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=denoting+phrase&gs_lp=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-QHCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAioQABiABBiKBRiRAhhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQPCAhMQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxhGGPkBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQPCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICLRAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA8ICChAAGIAEGEYY-QHCAgoQABiABBgKGLEDwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICJBAAGIAEGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA8ICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEYY-QHCAicQABiABBixAxhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQPCAggQABgWGB4YCogGAZAGAroGBggBEAEYAboGBggCEAEYC7oGBggDEAEYEw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">denoting phrase</a>. (In the case of the name “Pegasus”, the description would be “the fictional horse which has such and such characteristics”.)</span></p><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="8346" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Logical Positivists on “Meaningless” Statements</span></h4><p class="graf graf--p" name="882b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, the old logical-positivist way of classifying such sentences (e.g., “God does not exist”) as “meaningless” was way over the top. It was nothing less than Diktat Philosophy. That’s not because there actually is something Deep and Profound about what we call “nothing”, or because God does or does not exist. It’s because the logical positivist’s term “meaningless” is simply the end product of certain philosophical stipulations, rather than end result of arguments alone.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2d1c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Quine, for one, realised this when he happily accepted that sentences such as “God does not exist” and “The unicorn is angry” are certainly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">not</em> meaningless — even if God and unicorns don’t exist!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a28"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relatedly, the more obviously extreme “Pink ideas glide in and out of the vacuum” may be a silly sentence, but it’s not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningless</em>. Thus, the statement “Nothing is the most important subject” (or even Heidegger’s “The nothing nots”) isn’t necessarily meaningless. It may be silly or pretentious, but not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningless</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fd25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, we needn’t class “questions about nothing” as “meaningless” simply because Nothing doesn’t exist… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">as a thing</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ad1d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s if Nothing doesn’t exist as a thing!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="475a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now we can defend Parmenides’s position, as well as Russell’s, by attacking Heidegger’s.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="508e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Martin Heidegger on Nothing</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="883f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="593" data-image-id="1*4SlxY6c6q80PFbuDxfEvKQ.png" data-width="621" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4SlxY6c6q80PFbuDxfEvKQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="892b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Speaking (perhaps) ironically, can mere words<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>bring <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">things</em> into existence?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eecd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What about the words “round square” or “the timplebums” bringing a round square or the timplebums into existence… or into Being?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ac1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, what about Chomsky’s well-known statement <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”</a>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b96"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Martin Heidegger</a> was perplexed by the fact that we can refer to Nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0390"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Was Nothing brought into existence (or into Being) by virtue of people using the word “nothing”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d607"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Heidegger <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+about+this+nothing%3F%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn0_yEUQPnRawSweouBufQvjx5S7PWA%3A1708564673922&source=hp&ei=waDWZdiONsqM9u8Pmfq5kAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdau0eeXqESaH4ZTrfM-yBo2ly-SaGXr&ved=0ahUKEwiY89mz472EAxVKhv0HHRl9DqIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22What+about+this+nothing%3F%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhoiV2hhdCBhYm91dCB0aGlzIG5vdGhpbmc_IjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMggQABgWGB4YDzIIEAAYFhgeGA9IuwtQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBaaABaaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+about+this+nothing%3F%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn0_yEUQPnRawSweouBufQvjx5S7PWA%3A1708564673922&source=hp&ei=waDWZdiONsqM9u8Pmfq5kAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdau0eeXqESaH4ZTrfM-yBo2ly-SaGXr&ved=0ahUKEwiY89mz472EAxVKhv0HHRl9DqIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22What+about+this+nothing%3F%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhoiV2hhdCBhYm91dCB0aGlzIG5vdGhpbmc_IjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCBAAGBYYHhgPMggQABgWGB4YDzIIEAAYFhgeGA9IuwtQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBaaABaaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">asked</a>, “What about this nothing?”</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e2f8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pathmarks/txD6l0y89m4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+nothing%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Awhat+else+can+it+be+for+science+but+an+outrage+and+a+phantasm%3F%22&pg=PA84&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pathmarks/txD6l0y89m4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+nothing%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Awhat+else+can+it+be+for+science+but+an+outrage+and+a+phantasm%3F%22&pg=PA84&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">asked</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3611"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“The nothing — what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm?”</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ed35"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Heidegger contended that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.beyng.com/docs/MH-WhatIsMetaOrig.html" href="https://www.beyng.com/docs/MH-WhatIsMetaOrig.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“[s]cience wants to know nothing of the nothing”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="358d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Note the definite article in the two words “the nothing”. No wonder John D. Barrow capitalised this word.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3757"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Heidegger (who was critical of science for many other reasons too), science’s main sin is that it <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/23462/chapter-abstract/184540016?redirectedFrom=fulltext" href="https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/23462/chapter-abstract/184540016?redirectedFrom=fulltext" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“tries to express<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help”</a>. That is, science refers to (the) Nothing, yet it “rejects” Nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="81f1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[One wonders why Heidegger singled out science in this respect. After all, all of us use the word “nothing” and refer to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">nothing</em>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5de7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, Heidegger himself doesn’t use the words “refer” and “reference” — as analytic philosophers do. In other words, these terms weren’t found in his technical bag. However, surely when Heidegger asked “What about this nothing?”, he meant… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="503c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, we can refer to anything — even to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">nothing</em>. That’s unless the word “refer” is taken in some kind of strict philosophical sense, as Bertrand Russell did earlier.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="da4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, was Heidegger actually referring to the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_understanding" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_understanding" rel="noopener" target="_blank">vacuum</a>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0d00"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Nothing has hardly featured at all in most physics, and not even in speculative physics. However, as we saw at the beginning of this essay, the vacuum has been. Yet the vacuum is actually worlds away from Nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c81"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More grammatically:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="ba71"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">1) Do we “posit [nothing’s] being” when we use the word “nothing”?</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="8176"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">2) Do we simply use the word “nothing” because it is useful in certain — indeed, in many — contexts?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d59b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What did Heidegger think? This:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ee9c"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“With regard to the nothing, question and answer alike are absurd.”</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="36bd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, it must be assumed that Heidegger meant “vacuum”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="756b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now for Graham Priest.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bf4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Priest’s position seems similar to Heidegger’s. This is hardly surprising since Priest is a fan of Heidegger, and he refers to him a fair few times in his papers, articles and books.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8f33" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Graham Priest on Nothing</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a6b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="651" data-image-id="1*gfZX7M1MYa-Hfdtry_9Qvg.png" data-width="1180" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*gfZX7M1MYa-Hfdtry_9Qvg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3537"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Australian philosopher of logic <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Graham Priest</a> (like Martin Heidegger)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>appears to believe (if only when viewed critically) that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">words</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">creates objects</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ed5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, he doesn’t actually make that claim.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6fe5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So in Priest’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7d29"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“An object is anything you can refer to with a noun phrase, think about, quantify over.”</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="612a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As with Heidegger earlier, the problem here is that the readers of this essay can make up new “noun phrase[s]” on the spot.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d75"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about these examples (which start with a noun phrase)? — “The Something does”, “The bastules blinge”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5fd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, this is a liberal (or pluralist) position on objects in that Priest <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">concludes that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0531"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“so there are many objects, like Marcus, like Bond, like the City University of New York, like the Sun and so on all these things you can think about you can refer to”.</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6c83"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">… As well as <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objects</em> like Something and bastules.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="feb1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, this is a positively <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong's_jungle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Meinongian</a> conclusion. (Apart from the fact that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Alexius Meinong</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>never stressed — and possibly even ignored — language.) However, as Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap and many others put it (if in their various ways), Priest and Heidegger might well have been “<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22misled+by+language%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn08MfgPJUleo-5vPYi2v0nsUeEvuNA%3A1708564287436&source=hp&ei=P5_WZaXPGOqJ9u8PpaSAiAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdatTykZMth-Lz0BTLCfy1_9R9ngvHrs&ved=0ahUKEwjl6rT74b2EAxXqhP0HHSUSAKEQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22misled+by+language%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhQibWlzbGVkIGJ5IGxhbmd1YWdlIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIrgtQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBoAGgAaABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22misled+by+language%22&sca_esv=a591636a69e92710&sxsrf=ACQVn08MfgPJUleo-5vPYi2v0nsUeEvuNA%3A1708564287436&source=hp&ei=P5_WZaXPGOqJ9u8PpaSAiAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdatTykZMth-Lz0BTLCfy1_9R9ngvHrs&ved=0ahUKEwjl6rT74b2EAxXqhP0HHSUSAKEQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=%22misled+by+language%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhQibWlzbGVkIGJ5IGxhbmd1YWdlIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIrgtQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBoAGgAaABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">misled by language</a>”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9661"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It must be added here that apart from language, Priest also emphasises <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_(logic)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_%28logic%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">quantification</a>. However, this amounts to a very similar thing — quantification too <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">brings objects into existence</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="85f0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As the American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hilary Putnam</a> once put it: this is a case of the miraculous <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P6jT10cRPXQC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=%E2%80%9CI+think+part+of+the+appeal+of+mathematical+logic+is+that+the+formulas+look+mysterious+%E2%80%93+you+write+backward+Es!#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CI%20think%20part%20of%20the%20appeal%20of%20mathematical%20logic%20is%20that%20the%20formulas%20look%20mysterious%20%E2%80%93%20you%20write%20backward%20Es!" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P6jT10cRPXQC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=%E2%80%9CI+think+part+of+the+appeal+of+mathematical+logic+is+that+the+formulas+look+mysterious+%E2%80%93+you+write+backward+Es!#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CI%20think%20part%20of%20the%20appeal%20of%20mathematical%20logic%20is%20that%20the%20formulas%20look%20mysterious%20%E2%80%93%20you%20write%20backward%20Es!" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“backward E”</a> (i.e., the existential quantifier ∃<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">) </strong>doing its thing.</span></p><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="c092"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h4-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Quantifying <em class="markup--em markup--h4-em">Nothing</em></span></strong></h4><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9a8d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="684" data-image-id="1*YatYShdA84RjFW9mn8WqwQ.png" data-width="676" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*YatYShdA84RjFW9mn8WqwQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="22a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Graham Priest refers to quantifying over both <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">everything</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Nothing</em>. However, he has a position on quantification that appears to be at odds with the common one.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ab8c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Usually, it’s thought that all acts of quantification have a specific <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/tutorial4/Tut4-04.htm#:~:text=The%20domain%20of%20quantification%20is,about%20when%20one%20uses%20quantifiers." href="https://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/tutorial4/Tut4-04.htm#:~:text=The%20domain%20of%20quantification%20is,about%20when%20one%20uses%20quantifiers." rel="noopener" target="_blank">domain</a> in mind. Priest, on the other hand, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">believes that </a>“it’s okay to use a quantifier with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MRM6AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=its+okay+to+use+a+quantifier+with+the+widest+possible+scope&source=bl&ots=bpjw6gqx8q&sig=ACfU3U2Uxfe6qiFwQUWWEH4B5o7qVFhvaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0qfgkIDnAhVwUBUIHT5JDzMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=its%20okay%20to%20use%20a%20quantifier%20with%20the%20widest%20possible%20scope&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MRM6AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=its+okay+to+use+a+quantifier+with+the+widest+possible+scope&source=bl&ots=bpjw6gqx8q&sig=ACfU3U2Uxfe6qiFwQUWWEH4B5o7qVFhvaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0qfgkIDnAhVwUBUIHT5JDzMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=its%20okay%20to%20use%20a%20quantifier%20with%20the%20widest%20possible%20scope&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">widest possible scope</a>”. In other words, it’s fine to quantify over literally <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">everything</em>. (This is like a quantificational version of<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Russell’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set" rel="noopener" target="_blank">universal set</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3522"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Priest offers us a variation on the Parmenidean theme (discussed earlier) by arguing for the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="6c7c"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">i) If we “quantify over” any given </span><i>x</i><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="aef3"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">ii) then that </span><i>x</i><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> must be an “object” </span>of some kind<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="63ae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Priest, we also refer to (or quantify over) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">everything</em> — so that too must be an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">object</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c02b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, Priest says that “everything is an object” — just like <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Nothing</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="11be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s then that Priest gets all <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dialethic&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_IjBMZwI4g6JeX4hdlaoadHYPoBQ%3A1708699941383&source=hp&ei=JbHYZYrtE4qbhbIPhuya-AU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdi_NajOboAZoY6Qh1qTGQEf1Vj6OTxY&ved=0ahUKEwjKk5-o28GEAxWKTUEAHQa2Bl8Q4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=dialethic&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IglkaWFsZXRoaWMyERAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGIMBMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhixAzIREAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwEyDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMgcQLhiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKSOMHUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWOgAWOqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dialethic&sca_esv=1a30264c0409ca1f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_IjBMZwI4g6JeX4hdlaoadHYPoBQ%3A1708699941383&source=hp&ei=JbHYZYrtE4qbhbIPhuya-AU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdi_NajOboAZoY6Qh1qTGQEf1Vj6OTxY&ved=0ahUKEwjKk5-o28GEAxWKTUEAHQa2Bl8Q4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=dialethic&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IglkaWFsZXRoaWMyERAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGIMBMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhixAzIREAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYgwEyDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMg0QABiABBgKGLEDGIMBMgcQLhiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKSOMHUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWOgAWOqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">dialethic</a> by saying that Nothing is “not an object” too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9d32"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that Priest applies the same logic to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Everything</em> as he does to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Nothing</em>. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The following words </a>will make that clear:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="03e5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">“Everything is the mereological sum of every object </em>[]<em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"> If everything is the fusion of the sum of all objects, [then] what is nothingness? Nothingness is the sum of everything that isn’t an object because everything is an object. </em>[Nothingness is]<em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"> the sum of no things. What you get when you fuse together no things is exactly nothingness.”</em></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0946"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Priest ‘s logic, philosophers too have referred to Nothing. So Nothing must be what he calls an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">object</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="09b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Priest himself refers to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Ludwig Wittgenstein</a> (who said — remember — that a “whole cloud of philosophy [can be] condensed into a drop of grammar”) and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nagarjuna</a> on this issue. He says t<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">hat these two thinkers</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2c4e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">“tell </em>[]<em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"> you that something is ineffable; and then </em>[they]<em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"> explain why it’s ineffable — thereby talking about”.</em></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="438f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That is certainly the case with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Tractatus</em></a>, in which Wittgenstein discussed the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_zJ-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT334&lpg=PT334&dq=Wittgenstein,+#v=onepage&q=Wittgenstein," href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_zJ-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT334&lpg=PT334&dq=Wittgenstein,+#v=onepage&q=Wittgenstein," rel="noopener" target="_blank">“form of the world”</a>. We also had <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kant</a>’s many references to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon" rel="noopener" target="_blank">noumena</a>. (That’s even though Kant believed that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">nothing</em> could be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">known</em> about noumena.) Then again, all this is also true of the words “round square” or “the brick with a sense of humour” — which I’ve just referred to!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="680b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To repeat. Priest goes all linguistic or grammatical when he says that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4350/10b1e032060ee1cf45a7420d8b1e254f1363.pdf" href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4350/10b1e032060ee1cf45a7420d8b1e254f1363.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“‘nothing’, can also be a noun phrase”</a>. Basically, that’s because we can and do <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">talk</em> about it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8260"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More specifically, Hegel and Heidegger talked a lot about Nothing. As Priest puts it,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T80sAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%E2%80%9CWe+may+say+that+Hegel+and+Heidegger+both+wrote+about+nothing#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWe%20may%20say%20that%20Hegel%20and%20Heidegger%20both%20wrote%20about%20nothing" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T80sAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%E2%80%9CWe+may+say+that+Hegel+and+Heidegger+both+wrote+about+nothing#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWe%20may%20say%20that%20Hegel%20and%20Heidegger%20both%20wrote%20about%20nothing" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“[w]e may say that Hegel and Heidegger both wrote about nothing”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b0ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Moreover, “nothing” is “not [always] a quantifier phrase”. In other words, this story isn’t all about counting or quantifying. It’s also about a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">thing</em> — or an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">object</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d6de"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One other way in which we can talk about Nothing is to note that “[w]e can say that [Hegel and Heidegger] said different things about it”. In addition, Christianity talks about Nothing in that (so Priest tells us) “the Abrahamic God is supposed to have created the world” out of Nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6c21"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So we can see that Priest is fully committed to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_beard" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Plato’s Beard</a> in that (rhetorically or not) human sayings and writings bring <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objects</em> into existence.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="18c8"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="12df"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Note</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b91"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> Some of the quoted words and passages from Graham Priest are taken from the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Everything and Nothing’</a> seminar — a Robert Curtius Lecture of Excellence at Bonn University — which Priest gave in 2017. I relied on both the transcript and the video itself. However, I’ve edited a lot of what Priest says in that seminar to make it more comprehensible. For example, I removed many of the uses of the word “so”, added full stops, commas and suchlike. Hopefully, the philosophical content is kept intact. None of this applicable to the words and passages I quote which come from Priest’s papers and books.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b91"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b91"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-38209846345546413952024-03-10T16:11:00.000-07:002024-03-10T16:11:37.388-07:00Albert Einstein as Serial Killer and Misogynist: One Context of Discovery<p style="text-align: center;"> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></p><section class="section section--body" name="e064"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="e846"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(ii) Sokal’s Sex Life and Kripke’s Schooldays</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Robert P. Crease on the Envy, Rivalry and Anger of Scientists</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Paul Davies on Newton’s Religious Context of Discovery</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Rupert Sheldrake Against the Context-of-Discovery Distinction</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Slavoj Žižek Against the Context-of-Discovery Distinction</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9db1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*Xk0nBvOuQPKVCp_v8bRmCg.jpeg" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Xk0nBvOuQPKVCp_v8bRmCg.jpeg" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5e0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many readers will have noticed the numerous social-media memes which have Albert Einstein’s words embedded within them. Relevantly, most of these memes aren’t actually about his scientific theories and views, or even about science itself. Instead, most of them are posted to defend the view that Einstein was religious, or spiritual, or a socialist, or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">this</em>, or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">that</em>, or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the other</em>. Other memes concentrate on Einstein's private life.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="766e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More particularly, the users of Facebook and social media generally might also have also noted how often <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=54af7326df9a1a15&ei=TkzRZcCENquH9u8P7vajwAU&ved=0ahUKEwjA4_qUzrOEAxWrg_0HHW77CFgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEnNwaXJpdHVhbCBpZGVhbGlzbTIFEAAYgAQyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIhpoBUPsFWP2NAXACeACQAQCYAXGgAbMFqgEDNC4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYhgMYsAPCAggQABiABBiiBMICCBAAGIkFGKIEwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRifBcICBxAAGIAEGA3CAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAogGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=54af7326df9a1a15&ei=TkzRZcCENquH9u8P7vajwAU&ved=0ahUKEwjA4_qUzrOEAxWrg_0HHW77CFgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEnNwaXJpdHVhbCBpZGVhbGlzbTIFEAAYgAQyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIhpoBUPsFWP2NAXACeACQAQCYAXGgAbMFqgEDNC4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYhgMYsAPCAggQABiABBiiBMICCBAAGIkFGKIEwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRifBcICBxAAGIAEGA3CAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAogGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">spiritual idealists</a> (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://spiritualawakeningprocess.com/2011/05/spiritual-idealism.html" href="https://spiritualawakeningprocess.com/2011/05/spiritual-idealism.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>) and New Agers quote a handful of passages from German and Austrian physicists which were mainly spoken (or written) in the first three decades of the 20th century. The relevant point is that these much-quoted scientists rarely made an effort to tie their non-scientific views to their actual physical (i.e., technical) theories. What’s more, these physicists hardy referred to “Eastern thought” and spiritual stuff<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> in the first place</em>. Hence, the very-few passages which spiritual commentators, New Agers, etc. quote and embed in their memes.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8cf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Erwin Schrödinger is a good example of all this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="332e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He actually went out of his way to disconnect his interest in (loosely called) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Eastern religion </em>from his actual technical physics. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9747"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Agers, on the other hand, do the opposite of this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7ec6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such people go out of their way to connect — specifically — quantum physics to their <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior</em> spiritual beliefs.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ee2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So are all these (as it’s put in philosophy) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contexts of discovery</em> important to the scientific theories of particular scientists?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="344c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, are they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contexts of discovery</em> at all?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1a58" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Sokal’s Sex Life and Kripke’s Schooldays</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3825"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="504" data-image-id="1*Kn_762QSFXcgOhKnZDcONQ.png" data-width="427" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Kn_762QSFXcgOhKnZDcONQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f5df"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In extreme terms, it doesn’t matter if the scientist discussed (or memed) was also, say, a serial killer, a Nazi, a neoliberal, a narcissist, etc. In Einstein’s particular case, it doesn’t matter that he was (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://metro.co.uk/2018/04/02/einsteins-misogynist-manifesto-harsh-list-rules-scientist-gave-long-suffering-wife-7420388/" href="https://metro.co.uk/2018/04/02/einsteins-misogynist-manifesto-harsh-list-rules-scientist-gave-long-suffering-wife-7420388/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">according to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Metro</em> newspaper</a>) a “misogynist” and “neanderthal”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f94"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, to take just one example, the French critic and writer<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Sollers" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Sollers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philippe Sollers</a> was very interested in contexts of discovery. Or at least he was interested in in the sex life and personal psychology of a mathematician and physicist.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b059"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="756" data-image-id="1*bop5tL39QF58RSBpBxtTww.png" data-width="568" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*bop5tL39QF58RSBpBxtTww.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Philippe Sollers’ words are to be found in this article.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ca5b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now take American mathematician and physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Alan Sokal</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the physicist and philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bricmont" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bricmont" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jean Bricmont</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22that+our+private+lives+%27merit+investigation%27:+%27What+do+they+like%3F+What+paintings+do+they+have+on+their+walls%3F+What+are+their+wives+like%3F+How+are+those+beautiful+abstract+statements+translated+in+their+daily+and+sexual+lives%3F%27+Well!+Let%27s+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant,+mediocre,+sexually+frustrated+scientists,+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+enslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+(neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist,+take+your%C2%A0pick).%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22that+our+private+lives+%27merit+investigation%27:+%27What+do+they+like%3F+What+paintings+do+they+have+on+their+walls%3F+What+are+their+wives+like%3F+How+are+those+beautiful+abstract+statements+translated+in+their+daily+and+sexual+lives%3F%27+Well!+Let%27s+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant,+mediocre,+sexually+frustrated+scientists,+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+enslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist,+take+your%C2%A0pick%29.%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">their words</a> (from the book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=...+Well!+Lets+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant,+mediocre,+sexually+frustrated+scientists,+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+emslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+(neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist,+take+your+pick).+But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=...+Well!+Lets+concede+once+and+for+all+that+we+are+arrogant,+mediocre,+sexually+frustrated+scientists,+ignorant+in+philosophy+and+emslaved+by+a+scientistic+ideology+%28neoconservative+or+hard-line+Marxist,+take+your+pick%29.+But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Intellectual Impostures</a>) on Philippe Sollers’ words (see image above) on… well, Sokal and Bricmont themselves:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a3ef"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> Philippe Sollers asserts </i>[]<i> that our private lives ‘merit investigation’: ‘What do they like? What paintings do they have on their walls? What are their wives like? How are those beautiful abstract statements translated in their daily and sexual lives?’</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="72f2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Well! Let’s concede once and for all that we are arrogant, mediocre, sexually frustrated scientists, ignorant in philosophy and enslaved by a scientistic ideology (neoconservative or hard-line Marxist, take your pick).”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b7e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, how did Alan Sokal react to Philippe Sollers’ words?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="708d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Intellectual_Impostures/yTSu9cR4YEQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22But+please+tell+us+what+this+implies+concerning+the+validity+or+invalidity+of+our+arguments.%22&pg=PR18&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="eff4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But please tell us what this implies concerning the validity or invalidity of our arguments."</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7ab6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, popular-science writers often become very fixated on biographical detail. Perhaps they do so for two related — as well as obvious - reasons:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="b04d"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(1) To popularise science and scientists <br />(2) To help sell their books.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="17d6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s now take a rather less sexy context of discovery.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="6f34"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="508" data-image-id="1*plR0x9xI9ccsxs52zhoOVQ.png" data-width="502" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*plR0x9xI9ccsxs52zhoOVQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Saul Kripke</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="10ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American philosopher and logician <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Saul Kripke</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>was once honest enough to admit (in<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXv8et4JZk" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXv8et4JZk" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this</a> video) that his initial interest in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Ludwig Wittgenstein</a> was solely down to who taught him at university when he was a student. (He mentions “three faculty members” particularly.) Of course, alongside the fact that his teachers had an interest in Wittgenstein (specifically the “late Wittgenstein” of the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Philosophical Investigations</em>) would have been the fact that Kripke actually developed an independent interest in what Wittgenstein wrote. Having said that, Kripke also confesses that he didn’t at first see the importance of Wittgenstein or his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Philosophical Investigations</em></a>. Indeed, he didn’t “develop [his] own take on what [Wittgenstein] was doing until 1962 and 1963”…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9932"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Then again, Kripke was still only 22 in 1962…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But who cares about all this biographical detail!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7fb6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, a lot of people do.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b983"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with that.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a90d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The question is what relevance does it have to Kripke’s actual philosophical ideas in, say, logic, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, etc?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3dce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The context of Kripke’s discovery of Wittgenstein, in this case, will have no interest at all to those strict philosophers who’re solely interested in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context of justifying</em> Kripke’s analysis of Wittgenstein.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="926e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, if biography<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and context are really so important when it comes to Sokal’s arguments (or to the scientific theories of scientists), then take the following letter (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/albert-einsteins-personal-letter-may-fetch-over-15000-at-auction/articleshow/59899886.cms?from=mdr" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/albert-einsteins-personal-letter-may-fetch-over-15000-at-auction/articleshow/59899886.cms?from=mdr" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>) which Einstein wrote to his wife in 1919? —</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e149"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“You will make sure:<br />– that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;<br />– that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;<br />– that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d5eb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:<br />– my sitting at home with you;<br />– my going out or travelling with you.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cd4f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“You will obey the following points in your relations with me:<br />– you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;<br />– you will stop talking to me if I request it;<br />– you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="05c2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behaviour.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3b1b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Have these words ever appeared in any social-media memes?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7e1f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, Einstein’s letter to his wife (of the time) has indeed been tackled by journalists, and by some science writers too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3003"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The point here is that if contexts of discovery can be used in positive ways, then they can be used in negative ways too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a921"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, if positive contexts of discovery can be tied to actual scientific theories and ideas, then so too can negative ones.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="91e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So can we pick and choose contexts of discovery according to taste?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="47c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now let’s just pretend that Einstein was a serial killer, or a neanderthal, or a misogynist — or perhaps all three at once.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bca9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How would, say, the historian of science and philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Crease" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Crease" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Robert P. Crease</a> deal with these possibilities?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="216d" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Robert P. Crease on the Envy, Rivalry and Anger of Scientists</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9f0b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="744" data-image-id="1*o2pyAD7hXJAqTqXf_mR-Iw.png" data-width="508" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*o2pyAD7hXJAqTqXf_mR-Iw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="131b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Robert Crease isn’t just interested in contexts of discovery: he actually ties the scientific theories of physicists to their (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">extra-curricular</em> activities and beliefs…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e161"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or at least he seems to!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2221"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Crease believes such that such scientific theories actually embody aspects of the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">biographical detail </em>of the scientists who created them.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="c773"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="508" data-image-id="1*uxnKx-tmVnVE2FPHYfc_QA.png" data-width="402" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*uxnKx-tmVnVE2FPHYfc_QA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">Robert P. Crease</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ce04"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Great_Equations.html?id=IU04tZsVjXkC&redir_esc=y" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Great_Equations.html?id=IU04tZsVjXkC&redir_esc=y" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this passage</a> from Crease:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4a6e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>n Einstein </i>[]<i> we can see glimpses of what lies beyond the standard model: an account of science in which character and personal feeling are not marginal to the scientific process, not a prelude to a person’s scientific labours, but what sustains them and carried them forward.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5b48"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course it can still be asked if Crease is actually arguing that all this “character and personal feeling” is somehow <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">embodied</em> in scientists’ scientific theories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f0fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So if it is, then how is it so?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9fba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, what is Crease actually pitting himself against?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a96"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Crease is pitting himself against what he (ironically) calls “the standard model [of] [m]ost histories of science”. Crease <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/v=onepage&q=It%20emphasises%20the%20collective%20and%20impersonal%20dimension,%20and%20downplays%20the%20experiences%20of%20specific%20individuals.%20The%20principle%20structural%20ingredients%20are%20discoveries,%20instruments,%20measurements,%20and%20theories.&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/v=onepage&q=It%20emphasises%20the%20collective%20and%20impersonal%20dimension,%20and%20downplays%20the%20experiences%20of%20specific%20individuals.%20The%20principle%20structural%20ingredients%20are%20discoveries,%20instruments,%20measurements,%20and%20theories.&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2ac9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It emphasises the collective and impersonal dimension, and downplays the experiences of specific individuals. The principle structural ingredients are discoveries, instruments, measurements, and theories.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fdbd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this true?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dbca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Do historians really “downplay[] the experiences of specific individuals”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b754"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Not in the cases I’ve read.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fac5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, if we move away from historians of science, popular-science writers certainly don’t!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="81ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps that’s the very distinction Crease is making: the distinction between historians of science and popular-science writers. (Crease has himself written such a popular-science book — the one these quotes come from.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="482b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Moreover, even if what Crease says about historians of science is true, then what are we to make of all these <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">experiences of specific individuals </em>from a scientific point of view?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="64cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, much — very much ! — has been made of them from all sorts of other points of view.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="724f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, what relevance do the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> experiences of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific </em>scientists have to their <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> scientific theories and ideas?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8d24"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In more detail, Crease also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/657178?journalCode=isis" href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/657178?journalCode=isis" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8719"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[e]<i>nvy, rivalry, anger, disbelief, conviction, stress, hope, despair, dejection — all can be found in the documents”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f7ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Has any historian of science argued that scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">don’t</em> experience <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">envy, rivalry, anger,</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">disbelief, conviction, stress, hope, despair, rejection</em>? Has any scientist <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em> ever argued this about his fellow scientists?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b6bd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Like the physicist and popular-science writer Paul Davies (to be discussed in a moment), Robert Crease believes that all of this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">experience</em> becomes embodied in the actual scientific theories of scientists…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ddd0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or at least I think that’s what he believes.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e1b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already stated, it’s hard to see what Crease is getting at otherwise.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e3e8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Paul Davies certainly does believe this.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0b43" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Paul Davies on Newton’s Religious Contexts of Discovery</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9c66"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="526" data-image-id="1*1ZWm-purrGxYib5ePFQvDA.png" data-width="998" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*1ZWm-purrGxYib5ePFQvDA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a072"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The popular-science writer and physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Paul Davies</a> goes much further too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f8f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, Davies is keen to stress Isaac Newton’s religious beliefs, and how they influenced (or even determined) his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">actual </em>physics.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> (</strong>See Davies’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Taking Science on Faith’</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>for the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">New York Times.</em>)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a9f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, if this is true (in this case at least), then the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Bayesian-confirmation" href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Bayesian-confirmation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">context of discovery</a> can’t be separated from from the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_239#:~:text=Epistemology%20is%20and%20should%20be,logical%20relations%20are%20made%20explicit." href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_239#:~:text=Epistemology%20is%20and%20should%20be,logical%20relations%20are%20made%20explicit." rel="noopener" target="_blank">context of justification</a> at all. That’s because Davies is making a direct link between Newton’s scientific theories and his religious beliefs.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2607"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, if that link between contexts of discovery and actual scientific theories isn’t there, then (at its crudest) it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to Newton’s scientific theories and ideas whether he too was a serial killer, or believed in pink goblins, or was a Christian fundamentalist, or that he stole all his ideas from Leibniz.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="74b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, much has also been made of Newton’s (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">religious credentials </em>by other people.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea96"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious" rel="noopener" target="_blank">spiritual-but-not-religious</a> people and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age" rel="noopener" target="_blank">New-Agers</a> have made much of Newton’s alchemy, Biblical prophesies, chronologies, fixation with numbers, interpretations of the Bible, and his takes on the philosopher’s stone and sacred geometry.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ba0c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, their biographical and historical detail about Newton may well be largely correct!</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="4664" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Rupert Sheldrake Against the Distinction</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0cdf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="623" data-image-id="1*TyG5N_NtXArnRdXtWITRjQ.png" data-width="815" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*TyG5N_NtXArnRdXtWITRjQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f93"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Say that Einstein was a serial killer or a misogynist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="04ba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many scientists (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">get around</em> all this with the distinction they make between <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://bigthink.com/articles/the-crucial-distinction-between-scientists-and-science/" href="https://bigthink.com/articles/the-crucial-distinction-between-scientists-and-science/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">science <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">itself</em> and (flesh and blood) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">scientists</em></a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fd0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Philosophers attempt a similar job with their own distinction between the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery+and+the+context+of+justification&source=hp&ei=6aauZPLbOfyskdUPlOmhsAM&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZK60-rnHokjVoGv6vBmQMXE_qa5yKDQ_&ved=0ahUKEwiy9JzTn4mAAxV8VqQEHZR0CDYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery+and+the+context+of+justification&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHlAAWABg7ghoAHAAeACAAWiIAWiSAQMwLjGYAQCgAQKgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=context+of+discovery+and+the+context+of+justification&source=hp&ei=6aauZPLbOfyskdUPlOmhsAM&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZK60-rnHokjVoGv6vBmQMXE_qa5yKDQ_&ved=0ahUKEwiy9JzTn4mAAxV8VqQEHZR0CDYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=context+of+discovery+and+the+context+of+justification&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHlAAWABg7ghoAHAAeACAAWiIAWiSAQMwLjGYAQCgAQKgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context of discovery </em>and the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context of justification</em></a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d108"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, some critics of science (e.g., postmodernists, poststructuralists, religious and spiritual people, some Marxists, psychoanalysts, Jungians, etc.) have argued that this distinction<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>is a phoney. And it’s phoney largely because they see it as an idealisation and a simplification.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ce5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the related case of the scientist, writer and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Parapsychology">parapsychology</a> researcher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Rupert Sheldrake</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a896"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It can be assumed that Sheldrake will be aware of this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context-of-discovery/context-of-justification</em> distinction. However, it can also be assumed that he doesn’t really buy it — at least not unquestioningly. (I doubt that anyone accepts it unquestioningly. I don’t.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1cf9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Rebirth_of_Nature/114oDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22To+this+day,+scientists+pretend+that+they+are+rather+like+disembodied+minds.+Unlike+other+human+activities,+science+is+supposed+to+be+uniquely+objective.+Scientific+papers+are+conventionally+written+in+an+impersonal+style,+seemingly+devoid+of+emotions.+Conclusions+are+meant+to+follow+from+facts+by+a+logical+process+of+reasoning,+such+as+that+which+might+be+followed+by+a+computer,+if+machines+with+sufficient+artificial+intelligence+could+ever+be+constructed.+Nobody+is+ever+seen+doing+anything,+methods+are+followed,+phenomena+observed,+and+measurements+are+made,+preferably+with+instruments.+Everything+is+reported+in+the+passive+voice.+Even+schoolchildren+learn+this+style,+and+practise+it+in+their+laboratory+notebooks:+%27a+test+tube+was%C2%A0taken%E2%80%A6%27.%22&pg=PT55&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Rebirth_of_Nature/114oDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22To+this+day,+scientists+pretend+that+they+are+rather+like+disembodied+minds.+Unlike+other+human+activities,+science+is+supposed+to+be+uniquely+objective.+Scientific+papers+are+conventionally+written+in+an+impersonal+style,+seemingly+devoid+of+emotions.+Conclusions+are+meant+to+follow+from+facts+by+a+logical+process+of+reasoning,+such+as+that+which+might+be+followed+by+a+computer,+if+machines+with+sufficient+artificial+intelligence+could+ever+be+constructed.+Nobody+is+ever+seen+doing+anything,+methods+are+followed,+phenomena+observed,+and+measurements+are+made,+preferably+with+instruments.+Everything+is+reported+in+the+passive+voice.+Even+schoolchildren+learn+this+style,+and+practise+it+in+their+laboratory+notebooks:+%27a+test+tube+was%C2%A0taken%E2%80%A6%27.%22&pg=PT55&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9d94"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“To this day, scientists pretend that they are rather like disembodied minds. Unlike other human activities, science is supposed to be uniquely objective. Scientific papers are conventionally written in an impersonal style, seemingly devoid of emotions. Conclusions are meant to follow from facts by a logical process of reasoning, such as that which might be followed by a computer, if machines with sufficient artificial intelligence could ever be constructed. Nobody is ever seen doing anything, methods are followed, phenomena observed, and measurements are made, preferably with instruments. Everything is reported in the passive voice. Even schoolchildren learn this style, and practise it in their laboratory notebooks: ‘a test tube was taken…’</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b609"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“All research scientists know that this process is artificial; they are not disembodied minds, uninfluenced by emotion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="539c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what if </em>scientists did believe that they have “disembodied minds”? Where would that lead us? Would it impact on the attitude we have to their actual scientific theories, and to science generally?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="685d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Moreover, do any of Sheldrake’s psychological analyses of scientists (even if genuinely insightful) matter? (Readers may now ask: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Matter to whom? Matter in which respects?</em>)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5e5f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, isn’t this simply Sheldrake’s biased <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">interpretation</em> of what scientists believe? Indeed, even if (most? many? some?) scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">do</em> believe that they have a monopoly on what people call “the objective facts”, then that still wouldn’t entail a commitment to believing that their minds need to be disembodied in order to access those <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objective facts</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="efc5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The philosopher Zizek (who uses the words “objective truth-values”) is also against the distinction. However, he never actually uses the technical terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0b76" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Slavoj Žižek Against the Distinction</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e5c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="710" data-image-id="1*qTyu7v8wUS_DDWP4g3cBKA.png" data-width="455" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*qTyu7v8wUS_DDWP4g3cBKA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3330"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Firstly, Žižek tells us that the “standard distinction” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YRrThKGNTKIC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=Zizek,+the+social+or+psychological+conditions+of+a+scientific+invention+and+its+objective+truth-value&source=bl&ots=uARKFxRH3L&sig=ACfU3U1en4A5sd3G2A5Oo6l99c23bZHqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin6eL57qbiAhXNShUIHRkPCbcQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Zizek%2C%20the%20social%20or%20psychological%20conditions%20of%20a%20scientific%20invention%20and%20its%20objective%20truth-value&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YRrThKGNTKIC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=Zizek,+the+social+or+psychological+conditions+of+a+scientific+invention+and+its+objective+truth-value&source=bl&ots=uARKFxRH3L&sig=ACfU3U1en4A5sd3G2A5Oo6l99c23bZHqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin6eL57qbiAhXNShUIHRkPCbcQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Zizek%2C%20the%20social%20or%20psychological%20conditions%20of%20a%20scientific%20invention%20and%20its%20objective%20truth-value&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">is between</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="66c1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the social or psychological conditions of a scientific invention and its objective truth-value”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f20b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Žižek has a problem with this division (or distinction).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d065"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YRrThKGNTKIC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=Zizek%2C+the+social+or+psychological+conditions+of+a+scientific+invention+and+its+objective+truth-value&ots=uARKFxRH3L&sig=ACfU3U1en4A5sd3G2A5Oo6l99c23bZHqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin6eL57qbiAhXNShUIHRkPCbcQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Zizek%2C%20the%20social%20or%20psychological%20conditions%20of%20a%20scientific%20invention%20and%20its%20objective%20truth-value&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YRrThKGNTKIC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=Zizek%2C+the+social+or+psychological+conditions+of+a+scientific+invention+and+its+objective+truth-value&ots=uARKFxRH3L&sig=ACfU3U1en4A5sd3G2A5Oo6l99c23bZHqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin6eL57qbiAhXNShUIHRkPCbcQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Zizek%2C%20the%20social%20or%20psychological%20conditions%20of%20a%20scientific%20invention%20and%20its%20objective%20truth-value&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continues</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="435c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The least one can say about it is that the very distinction between the (empirical, contingent sociopsychological) genesis of a certain scientific formation and its objective truth-value, independent of the conditions of this genesis, already presupposes a set of distinctions (between genesis and truth-value, etc.) which are by no means self-evident.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5ace"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s firstly comment on certain terms which Žižek uses, and which are questionable.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b238"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take his words “objective truth-value”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2939"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Surely one can make a distinction between the context of discovery (or Žižek’s “genesis”) and the context of justification, and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">still</em> not have a strong (or even any) commitment to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objective </em>truth-values.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ef4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For one, what does “objective” even mean in this context?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="26ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The words “scientific invention” also (to use Žižek’s own words) “presuppose[] a set of distinctions” which Žižek <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em> is making. In this case, he appears to believe that scientific theories (or even experimental findings) are little (or even nothing) more than <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">inventions</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1591"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, “invention” is a loaded term. Nonetheless, Žižek is on fairly strong ground here because some quantum theorists (who’re also physicists) stress this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c00c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“quantum Bayesianism” </a>(Qbism) and the position of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/" href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Christopher Fuchs</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4cbd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Fuchs believes that “quantum states represent observers’ personal information, expectations and degrees of belief”. More relevantly, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-3hvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Philip+Ball,+allows+one+to+see+all+quantume+measurements+events+as+little+moments+of+creation,+rather+than+as+revealing+anything+pre-existent&source=bl&ots=CS2U8koOqh&sig=ACfU3U3Up8hAGyE0gS7X51CCdKG_Ywhj7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip_bz57abiAhUWVRUIHZTCB44Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Philip%20Ball%2C%20allows%20one%20to%20see%20all%20quantume%20measurements%20events%20as%20little%20moments%20of%20creation%2C%20rather%20than%20as%20revealing%20anything%20pre-existent&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-3hvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Philip+Ball,+allows+one+to+see+all+quantume+measurements+events+as+little+moments+of+creation,+rather+than+as+revealing+anything+pre-existent&source=bl&ots=CS2U8koOqh&sig=ACfU3U3Up8hAGyE0gS7X51CCdKG_Ywhj7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip_bz57abiAhUWVRUIHZTCB44Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Philip%20Ball%2C%20allows%20one%20to%20see%20all%20quantume%20measurements%20events%20as%20little%20moments%20of%20creation%2C%20rather%20than%20as%20revealing%20anything%20pre-existent&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Fuchs believes</a> that this</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="593c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“allows one to see all quantum measurements events as little ‘moments of creation’, rather than as revealing anything pre-existent”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="06c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now what could be more (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=constructionism&sca_esv=5d48de1e8e0fb59b&source=hp&ei=wQ7TZf2JN6HXhbIPlbK2uAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdMc0WdYCGXWs54JFLCsDw6uHcpbJ3jY&ved=0ahUKEwi97rjf-7aEAxWha0EAHRWZDRcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=constructionism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig9jb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb25pc20yBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIHEAAYgAQYCjIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIwSBQAFitHHAAeACQAQCYAWqgAf0IqgEEMTQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGI4FwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAgsQABiABBixAxjJA8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJIDwgINEC4YgAQYxwEY0QMYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=constructionism&sca_esv=5d48de1e8e0fb59b&source=hp&ei=wQ7TZf2JN6HXhbIPlbK2uAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdMc0WdYCGXWs54JFLCsDw6uHcpbJ3jY&ved=0ahUKEwi97rjf-7aEAxWha0EAHRWZDRcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=constructionism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig9jb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb25pc20yBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIHEAAYgAQYCjIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIwSBQAFitHHAAeACQAQCYAWqgAf0IqgEEMTQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGI4FwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAgsQABiABBixAxjJA8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJIDwgINEC4YgAQYxwEY0QMYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">constructionist</em></a>, and, more relevantly, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">biographical</em> than stressing (scientific) “moments of creation”?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="8ad9"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="657a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Note:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="08d1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> See Walter Moore’s excellent biography: <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Schrödinger: Life and Thought</em></a>. Moore goes into much detail on Schrödinger’s interest in Schopenhauer, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Vedanta</em></a>, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08d1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08d1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-13178200813234919062024-03-09T18:40:00.000-08:002024-03-09T18:40:45.483-08:00Philosophy: My Posts (or Tweets) on X (2)<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="444" data-image-id="1*w9SNS4dyxAspivqSrHbaGw.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="847" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*w9SNS4dyxAspivqSrHbaGw.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="7f03"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="36dc"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Philosophy is not dead. It has kept up with science. </span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Sexy Popular Science </span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) It’s Been Peer-Reviewed! Wow! </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) What Happened to Philosophy? (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Philosophy Now</em>)</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="a987"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="6eb4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is the second of a series of my philosophy posts (or tweets) on X, as now published here on Medium.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="619d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The tweets were relatively long anyway, as I have a X Premium subscription which allows people to publish long posts. Indeed, I went for the subscription option precisely because I was unhappy with X’s word limit (as well as other limitations)…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="67dd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What can you say in (up to) 280 characters? Not that I ever intended to do the opposite: post article-long posts on X.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9da9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, I intended to strike a happy medium between posting full essays, and posting short (usually unhelpful) tweets on X.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fe26"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of my reposts on Medium, I’ll often need to stop myself from over-extending the original X posts, which will kinda defeat the object of reposting “shorts”. However, as stated, some X posts will be tweaked and extended if required.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f93b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, I also add links to the original tweets, which can’t be done on X itself.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="cba1"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3e16" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Philosophy is not dead. It has kept up with science.</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4837" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="606" data-image-id="1*qzlDL7YJ-SpfEpn4HC8Yjw.png" data-width="730" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*qzlDL7YJ-SpfEpn4HC8Yjw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f522"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some </em>philosophers haven’t kept up with science. However, many have.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0863"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or, I should say, many analytic philosophers have.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5469"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Som</em>e philosophers outside that tradition, on the other hand, don’t have much respect for science. Indeed, they’re positively anti-science. So perhaps Stephen Hawking had them in mind… Probably not.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="881d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This also depends on what the words “kept up with” mean. What is deemed to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">up to date </em>anyway? Full knowledge of the papers which have been published in the last, say, three months in respected science journals?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0482"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s also true that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> philosophers (such as <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Metaphysical_realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Metaphysical_realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">metaphysical realists</a>) believe that philosophy actually trumps science in that if there’s a clash between the two, then science itself must accommodate philosophical theories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="55cf"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Lowe_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Lowe_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">E. J. Lowe</a> believed this — at least when it came to to certain issues, such as the nature of spacetime. See his chapter ‘Metaphysics’ in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/bloomsbury-companion-to-analytic-philosophy-9781441126283/" href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/bloomsbury-companion-to-analytic-philosophy-9781441126283/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Bloomsbury Companion to Analytic Philosophy</em></a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9822"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It also depends on how much knowledge of science critical scientists expect from philosophers. As much knowledge — and as many skills — as scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em> have? However, if that were ever the case, then wouldn’t such philosophers actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">be</em> scientists?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc23"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is that the problem that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> scientists have with <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> philosophers — that they aren’t actually scientists?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f53"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is it really that simple?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="935c" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Sexy Popular Science</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b0ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="780" data-image-id="1*2yxnJN9lSJrOacsbdGJgKQ.png" data-width="754" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*2yxnJN9lSJrOacsbdGJgKQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="2ea3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps “pop culture” often gets these things wrong because of what physicists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em> write and say. More precisely, because of what physicists write in their “popular science” books.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cfdc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This has got a lot to do with physicists (not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">pop culture</em>) attempting to make their topics (more?) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">sexy</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="971c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are two main reasons why such physicists tart up science:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="af95"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(1) In order to get more people interested in science.</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="ef4f"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(2) To help sell more of their own books.</span></span></span></blockquote><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7eec" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">It’s Been Peer-Reviewed! Wow!</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1aeb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="582" data-image-id="1*xMEIPsH0Ac32ZWheWfxoCA.png" data-width="740" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*xMEIPsH0Ac32ZWheWfxoCA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7923"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In response to the claim above, are we meant to stand back and shout the following? —</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="d3f8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>Peer-reviewed! Wow! I’ll order half a dozen.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cf79"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not actually against peer-review. (It would be an odd thing to be against.) And there is a strong need for it. However, there are also problems.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e54a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, what if all the reviewers of a paper (or within a specific journal) believe similar things, have been educated in similar ways, uphold the same political or scientific views, etc?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6113"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What if there are only two reviewers for a particular submitted paper?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ccbe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What if all (or perhaps just some) of the reviewers are biased, corrupt, dumb, or simple careerists?</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="03d0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="570" data-image-id="1*RM_5DsKuByZpQw8-DCQWuA.png" data-width="662" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*RM_5DsKuByZpQw8-DCQWuA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="fdca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a> has</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4651"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“an answer to the riddle of why mathematics is so effective in describing the laws of nature and quantum mechanics”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b55b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the physicists, mathematicians and philosophers on the planet are waiting with bated breath for his answer.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5f1e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1e95"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="219" data-image-id="1*AsnqhfuFUNBxKsyiWkwR-Q.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*AsnqhfuFUNBxKsyiWkwR-Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d7e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Endless <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Feynman</a> tweets and memes on X/Twitter are about as useful to science as Brad Pitt’s haemorrhoids.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ef74" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">What Happened to Philosophy? (<em class="markup--em markup--h3-em">Philosophy Now</em>)</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5594" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="821" data-image-id="1*pXsW1kr3BgPd7jycSaswYg.png" data-width="748" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*pXsW1kr3BgPd7jycSaswYg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1988"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The content of the tweet above (at least) seems to tie in with what Nigel Warburton, Julian Baggini, Simon Critchley, etc. have to say about <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22academic+Anglo-American+analytic+philosophy%22&sca_esv=3adfed459a349879&sxsrf=ACQVn08OH-8NQZ3eqM-RQHBCNVRAMUgGzw%3A1708530646310&ei=1hvWZdjEEu2L9u8PrMqH2A8&ved=0ahUKEwjYh4vS5LyEAxXthf0HHSzlAfsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22academic+Anglo-American+analytic+philosophy%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLSJhY2FkZW1pYyBBbmdsby1BbWVyaWNhbiBhbmFseXRpYyBwaGlsb3NvcGh5IjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIsBVQ4wRYkA9wAXgAkAEAmAHzAaABzAiqAQU0LjQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA8ICBhAAGB4YDcICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIKECEYChigARjDBIgGAZAGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22academic+Anglo-American+analytic+philosophy%22&sca_esv=3adfed459a349879&sxsrf=ACQVn08OH-8NQZ3eqM-RQHBCNVRAMUgGzw%3A1708530646310&ei=1hvWZdjEEu2L9u8PrMqH2A8&ved=0ahUKEwjYh4vS5LyEAxXthf0HHSzlAfsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22academic+Anglo-American+analytic+philosophy%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLSJhY2FkZW1pYyBBbmdsby1BbWVyaWNhbiBhbmFseXRpYyBwaGlsb3NvcGh5IjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIsBVQ4wRYkA9wAXgAkAEAmAHzAaABzAiqAQU0LjQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA8ICBhAAGB4YDcICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIKECEYChigARjDBIgGAZAGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“professional Anglo-American analytic philosophy”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2e6e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s odd how strong and systematic the links are between the philosophers who criticise “professional philosophy”, and, well, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">professional philosophy</em>, as well as their links to university departments of philosophy, and to their various colleagues who’re professional philosophers. Indeed, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/p/a7545629c59f" href="https://medium.com/p/a7545629c59f" target="_blank">Simon Critchley</a> is a professional academic philosopher and critic of “professional philosophy”, and has been so for almost his entire adult life.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a9e0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://psyche.co/users/alexander-jeuk" href="https://psyche.co/users/alexander-jeuk" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Alexander Jeuk</a> (who classes himself as a “Marxist philosopher”) says that “modern philosophy suffers from overspecialization”. (My very strong bet is that he actually means <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">analytic philosophy</a>.) Would he also say that about any other discipline — such as physics, chemistry and economics? And what about Critical Race Theory, Subaltern Studies, Women’s Studies, etc?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4e6d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps the (romantic) argument is that philosophy isn’t (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">shouldn’t</em> be) like these (former) disciplines. It should be “for the people”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="61f1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m also curious about Alexander Jeuk’s reference to “simplistic argument structures”. On the face of it, isn’t “overspecialised” philosophy (again, he means <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">analytic philosophy</em>) the prime culprit when it comes to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">too</em>-<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">complex</em> “argument structures”?… So perhaps these (seemingly?) complex structures are actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">simplistic structures</em>, at least according to Alexander Jeuk.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c9d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now I’m very curious.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f6f7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b9ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="193" data-image-id="1*-Whk6FZXw1qeV6sGvHNkuw.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*-Whk6FZXw1qeV6sGvHNkuw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e3d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Did Nietzsche prove that?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3bd3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Shorter</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="378c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="802" data-image-id="1*fCTLrkycCi6fKy2kPwlcAA.png" data-width="705" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*fCTLrkycCi6fKy2kPwlcAA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="39fd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is wank.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b32"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As if there are any important philosophers who haven’t “read philosophy”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb1b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, the meme above is poetic and rhetorical. However, if taken literally, then it’s wank.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="56f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nietzsche himself read lots of philosophy. And Nietzschean philosophy is largely a response to<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> prior</em> philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7cc4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So am I missing the point here anyway?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="03d5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this simply about hipster memes-for-teens on Twitter/X?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="7cc6"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c43"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">My account on X can be found </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">here</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">.</strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c43"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c43"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c43"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1c43"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-39680716801253302122024-03-08T22:41:00.000-08:002024-03-08T22:41:59.516-08:00Philosophy: My Posts (or Tweets) on X (1)<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*8P1KaqroOSoyc1az0I23ww.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*8P1KaqroOSoyc1az0I23ww.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="5386"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="1038"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Albert Einstein, Just War Theory, and Pacifism </span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Transcending Reason </span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Why Study Philosophy? </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) The Nothing Nots </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Theoretical Physics Isn’t Philosophy? </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Is Time Travel Possible? </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Do Academic Philosophers Contribute to “Public Discourse”?</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8501"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is the first of a series of my philosophy posts (or tweets) on X, as now published on Medium.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f63"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The tweets were relatively long anyway, as I have a X Premium subscription which allows people to publish longish posts. Indeed, I went for the subscription option precisely because I was unhappy with X’s word limit (as well as other limitations)…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="573e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, what can you say in up to 280 characters? Not that I ever intended to do the opposite: post article-long posts on X.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cde7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, I intended to strike a happy medium between posting full articles (or essays), and posting short (therefore usually unhelpful) tweets on X.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6742"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of my reposts on Medium, I’ll often need to stop myself from over-extending the original X posts, which will kinda defeat the object of reposting “shorts”. However, as stated, some X posts will be tweaked and extended if required.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb65"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, I also add links to the original tweets, which can’t be done on X itself.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="912d"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2a2a"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Albert Einstein, Just War Theory, and Pacifism</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="6c9b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="866" data-image-id="1*ib5t6b-andtyaFy2mivvCQ.png" data-width="643" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*ib5t6b-andtyaFy2mivvCQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b5fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Albert Einstein believed in a “just war”. He must have done. He believed that the war against Nazi Germany (in 1939) was <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">just</em>. Yet he was also a self-described <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">“</strong>pacifist”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea03"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So was this like the following?-</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="dc29"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I’m a pacifist, BUT…”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4630"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[“I’m not a racist, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">but</em>…” Or: “I’m not a Marxist, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">but</em>…” Etc.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="963f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps most people are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">pacifists-but</em>. Or perhaps most <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">pacifists</a> are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">pacifists-but</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ff4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not sure if there’s a strong contradiction here, and perhaps Einstein stopped being a pacifist at some point. However, didn’t he become a pacifist <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">again</em> after the Second World War? (I don’t know much biographical detail about Einstein.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8bdf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Can pacifists pick and choose as Einstein seemingly did? More relevantly to the tweet above, do <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> pacifists believe that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> wars are<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> just</em>?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5b93"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, if they do, then surely they’re not pacifists…</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b3a2" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Transcending Reason</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f0ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="687" data-image-id="1*lx6KaPgJ-TIhNwCPWW3S7g.png" data-width="670" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*lx6KaPgJ-TIhNwCPWW3S7g.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c3b0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are two problems with (supposedly) “transcending reason”:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="285e"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) Historically, </span>reason<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> has often been required (or “used”) to </span>transcend reason<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">. <br />(2) Those who genuinely <i>transcend reason</i> will also need to compete with others who genuinely transcend reason.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="aaf4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Irrationalists (or those who “transcend reason”) usually compete with rival irrationalists by using violence, abuse, emotional language, poetic and categorical proclamations, etc. That’s what I meant in (2) above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6def"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is all that why <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Martin Heidegger</a> embraced the Nazis?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="76cd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Most Heideggerians, of course, deny all this, or say that it’s irrelevant to his philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ae2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Really?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ca0c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Not if Nazi and other other kinds of irrationalism are embedded in Heidegger’s actual philosophy! Indeed, isn’t that one implicit claim of some of those who speak of “transcending reason”?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ca45" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Why Study Philosophy?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="6b58"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="264" data-image-id="1*bw-8SUNa0Oz2zcpz8-qwxw.png" data-width="769" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*bw-8SUNa0Oz2zcpz8-qwxw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ffcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Joyce Carol Oates could do with studying more philosophy herself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f3f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">She doesn’t even bother telling her readers why philosophy has been “rendered irrelevant by more specialized fields of inquiry (linguistics, neuroscience, etc.)”. In fact, at face value, it’s hard to know what that even means. It’s almost like saying that tennis has been <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">rendered irrelevant</em> by dogging.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ffe5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In her favour, it’s only a tweet, not a paper or article.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8b55"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The thing is, many tweeters can’t go much further than slogan-full posts. What’s more, most philosophers haven’t read Lucretius. So that philosopher is an oddly personal choice.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9130" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Nothing Nots</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1a85"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="614" data-image-id="1*EW4XKEK_0s7B4Frfu8eCdQ.png" data-width="860" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*EW4XKEK_0s7B4Frfu8eCdQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="be4f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this the paper in which the words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Heidegger+-+%22nothing+nots%22&sca_esv=17a68768bff6222b&sxsrf=ACQVn0-CZkuQ802gTCeX5jZ4NLSBWEDM7w%3A1708151153052&ei=cVHQZcTtAo2ihbIP6Kyb4Ao&ved=0ahUKEwiE6sz13rGEAxUNUUEAHWjWBqwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Heidegger+-+%22nothing+nots%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGkhlaWRlZ2dlciAtICJub3RoaW5nIG5vdHMiMggQIRigARjDBEi0EFDrB1jrB3ABeACQAQCYAVmgAVmqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Heidegger+-+%22nothing+nots%22&sca_esv=17a68768bff6222b&sxsrf=ACQVn0-CZkuQ802gTCeX5jZ4NLSBWEDM7w%3A1708151153052&ei=cVHQZcTtAo2ihbIP6Kyb4Ao&ved=0ahUKEwiE6sz13rGEAxUNUUEAHWjWBqwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Heidegger+-+%22nothing+nots%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGkhlaWRlZ2dlciAtICJub3RoaW5nIG5vdHMiMggQIRigARjDBEi0EFDrB1jrB3ABeACQAQCYAVmgAVmqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the nothing nots”</a> occur? It is certainly the paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Rudolf Carnap</a> had a go at.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0bbd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oddly, they were both on the same page when it came to criticising Western metaphysics. That is, both had a Year Zero attitude toward metaphysics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4223"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Arguably, Carnap was even more extreme than Heidegger on this. After all, Heidegger knew his philosophical history. I’m not sure that Carnap did.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="174f" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Continental Philosophy</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1c34"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="607" data-image-id="1*aW3FI3zUkN9glWTq3-JbrA.png" data-width="877" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*aW3FI3zUkN9glWTq3-JbrA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="d2ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is the above a good example of taking the piss out of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">analytic philosophy</a>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ff5d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Try my response:</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8878"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Continental Philosophy:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="50c6"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“Cars transcend the multi-variational multiply of epic Being-qua-Being. Houses are fascistic in intent and design. Thereforeto4, it’s not that cars aren’t fascistic too, it’s that Godel’s theorem says that houses are more fascistic…”</span></em></blockquote><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ebed" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Theoretical Physics Isn’t Philosophy?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0636"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="847" data-image-id="1*QvwVT20PPyR4HtJcnSD0wg.png" data-width="721" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*QvwVT20PPyR4HtJcnSD0wg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1738"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Theoretical physics may not actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">be</em> philosophy. However, surely it’s often <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em>. Indeed, much of it is speculative…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0550"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And a good thing too… up to a point.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f422"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Do other physicists, unlike <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Max Born</a>, believe that theoretical physics isn’t philosophy simply because the subject matter is, well, physics? Does the maths contained in it automatically stop it from being philosophy?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4216"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not arguing that theoretical physics <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> philosophy (as in “the ‘is’ of identity”).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7723" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Is time travel possible?</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4854"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="482" data-image-id="1*q-a6hReumkwTz86WvvEi9w.png" data-width="958" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*q-a6hReumkwTz86WvvEi9w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b32"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some philosophers and scientists have argued that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/95myzr/philosophers_argue_that_time_travel_is_logically/" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/95myzr/philosophers_argue_that_time_travel_is_logically/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">time travel is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">logically impossible</em></a>. Thus, it seems that their position has little to do with technological limits, physical laws, spacetime, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a5a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, what some philosophers and scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">deem</em> to be logically impossible, may not actually<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> be</em> logically impossible.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5558" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Do Academic Philosophers Contribute to “Public Discourse”?</span></strong></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9628"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="585" data-image-id="1*LquFwAw5fjhLL7optaK5Gg.png" data-width="945" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*LquFwAw5fjhLL7optaK5Gg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="daee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I’m not in favour of any cuts to philosophy departments. However, I still need to know what the words “an excellent Philosophy Dept, whose faculty members have contributed so much to public discourse” mean.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8192"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To pin that down a little.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4a94"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What do the words “contributed so much to public discourse” mean?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="16a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I suppose that because universities are “public” bodies, and the work of academics is public, then, by definition, academic philosophers must have “contributed so much to public discourse”… But I’m not sure.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9cc0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Academics really must be more <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> about why they deem their own careers to be so important, and also about the role they believe they play in society at large. I suspect that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michela_Massimi" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michela_Massimi" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Michela Massimi</a> is only tweeting to other academics. However, how does she believe her words will sound to all those outside the Academy?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="30ad"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="5446"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">My account on X can be found </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" href="https://twitter.com/PaulAustinMurp2" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">here</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">.</strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5446"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5446"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5446"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><br /></strong></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-57675049259464647002024-03-03T22:52:00.000-08:002024-03-03T22:52:26.597-08:00Spiritual Paranormalist Clinton Baptiste Isn’t a Fraud!<figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4da6"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*HYHJy0eohcf4mdcd-X-png.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*HYHJy0eohcf4mdcd-X-png.png" /></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="269e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The thing about Clinton Baptiste is that he actually looks deeply spiritual. His blonde locks display that deep <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spirito di punto</em> inside all of us. Indeed, when in close proximity to the great man, you can smell his spirit.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08e1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Materialists, scientists and naysayers will say what they say about him, but they can’t ignore his uncanny spiritual abilities.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e440"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, when psyching for an audience of 500 peoples, Baptiste passed a message to a Pascal Del Monte from the Other Side: “Someone called Dave says you’re a twat.”</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fdf7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So who, but a soulless materialist, could doubt Clinton’s incredible psychic gifts when he also said to an audience, “I’m getting the name… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">John</em>. Is there a John in the audience?”</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b693"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And guess what.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="20ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There was a John in the audience!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="91d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now that is true spiritual greatness!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cbf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, Baptiste’s psychic skills are quite remarkable, despite what the materialists and sceptics sneeringly say in their Medium stories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd0d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some people have even suggested that the police should use Baptiste’s services. Take the time when he did some heavy-duty psyching:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f1be"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I’m getting the word… ‘nonce’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c55c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes! Baptiste had correctly identified a nonce in the audience.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0d4e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And the proof that he was Right came when the nonce punched him in the face.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="29f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here’s another example.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cdcc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baptiste has psyched Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain (who died), Neil Armstrong, and Jesus H. Christ. (“He’s got a beard and the long robes and everything”).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="597d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, oddly enough, Baptiste himself needs a spiritual guide in order to take him to a yet-higher spiritual realm. His guide is Taruak the Eskimo. (Later rechristened as Taruak the Inuit when Baptiste became well aware of cultural sensitivities and stuff.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1266"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Clinton is very much hands on too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8c71"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, all the spiritual stuff isn’t just based on theory: it’s also grounded in practice, reality and experience. Indeed, Clinton has personally experienced 23 Near Death Experiences in the last 7 years (as recalled <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LBP33jMOHQ&t=115" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LBP33jMOHQ&t=115" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1b78" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Scientists and Materialism are Evil</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d65b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="765" data-image-id="1*k-sUOFsuct0OuL5_qi-G0Q.png" data-width="509" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*k-sUOFsuct0OuL5_qi-G0Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6547"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the case of astrology, and what all those closed-minded scientists say about it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d9e4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">192 scientists were once asked about astrology. (19 of them were Nobel Prize winners.) In broad terms, they all claimed that astrology has no scientific support, logical explanation, and is a bunch of bull*shit.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b3c8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Clearly, these scientists — all of them — are total fuck*ers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f97e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, they’re soooooooo cocooned in their petty world of fact, argument and data that they can’t see <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the Truth</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c1ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If only they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">felt</em> the Truth.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2bc0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I blame materialism myself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="716d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Materialism is, well, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">evil</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3e23"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s responsible for literally — and I mean that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">literally</em> — all the ills of the Western world.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0096"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the Spiritual East, and to some extent in our own spiritual past, there were no wars, no persecutions, no narrowmindednesses, no tribalism, no hate. There was simply a holistic spiritual reality in which all the parts of the Universal 1 were interconnected to each in some crazy quantum-entangled kinda way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dfea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, in the Spiritual East, even farmers and bricklayers stared at the stars for at least half-an-hour each day, contemplated-Being-for-a-while, and then blended into Mother Nature’s welcoming womb.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a6f1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But in the West, all that ended in 1637 - with the satanic birth of materialism!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1658"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, when Desmond “the Des” Carts released his first album — <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Discourse on der Method.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c108"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Materialism?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e4a3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, where do I start?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e493"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Materialism embodies an entire omni-omni-bus-pass-of-a-mindset and a worldview.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a009"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">From dawn till dusk (or both), materialism controls every aspect of our lives — from our love of war and our hate of love, to how we make love to beatifical ladies.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0b13"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, metaphysical materialism and everyday materialism — consumerism! — are actually one and the same thing. And that’s because the latter grew on the dung heap of the former.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5a09"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hence, the rampant egoism in the West.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3fb8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="431" data-image-id="1*izJBNqFLnzMvDWNywFNeqA.png" data-width="896" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*izJBNqFLnzMvDWNywFNeqA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Deepak Chopra. Clinton Baptiste is a good spiritual friend of Chopra. They grew up together in Bolton’s “spiritual quarter”. They share the same accountant.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="5081"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unlike millionaire gurus and quantum businessmen, most Westerners (especially the scientists) are ruled by their possessions, self-image, titles, and a sense of their own superiority…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a95e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And it is that hellhole that spiritual conduits like Clinton Baptiste are rebelling against.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9871"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual-but-not-religious</em> people are showing us the way to a selfless, possessionless, and egoless world.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9043"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baptiste himself displayed his selflessness and ego death when during Peak Covid he manged to carry out bargain-priced seances and readings over Zoom.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8289"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="437" data-image-id="1*1PaAoEap5SkcTv3MA-FucQ.png" data-width="1309" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*1PaAoEap5SkcTv3MA-FucQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So please checkout Clinton Baptiste’s live acts, as well as his podcast — the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/clinton-baptistes-paranormal-podcast/id1444738940" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/clinton-baptistes-paranormal-podcast/id1444738940" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Paranormal Podcast</a>. Tickets are only 50 quid for the acts, and each podcast is downloadable for free at only £9.99.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><br /></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><br /></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><br /></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><br /></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231c"><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-50849706224994199392024-02-19T18:02:00.000-08:002024-02-19T18:02:01.751-08:00Eugene Wigner’s ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’: Idealism, Materialism, Consciousness<p><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This essay is mainly about Eugene Wigner’s position on the wave function and its relation to what he called “sensations” and “impressions”. It also connects all of that to idealism, and the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics.</span></strong></p><section class="section section--body" name="63d6"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0340"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*MGuIm4JeJqaoQLsbJ1XNiA.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*MGuIm4JeJqaoQLsbJ1XNiA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">New Agers, spiritual commentators, and some idealists have created multiple images (or memes) with the words of a small number of famous physicists embedded within them. The passages quoted are nearly always the same ones. Indeed, they’ve been used countless times. These passages are often little more than a single sentence. And, as ever, they’re taken completely out of any context. All this quoting of famous physicists is usually (or even always) done for one reason, and for one reason only: to advance various spiritual and religious beliefs (often about “cosmic consciousness”) which have virtually nothing to do with physics qua physics.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="fc26"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Was Eugene Wigner a Positivist?</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Eugene Wigner on “Impressions” and “Sensations”</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Wigner on Sensations and the Wave Function</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0b12"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Writers must be careful when discussing Eugene Wigner’s philosophical views.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, no one could deny that his paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’</a> (which<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>I’ll be concentrating upon) has inspired at least <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> New Agers, idealists and spiritual commentators. (At least those who feel the need to mention scientists to back up what they already believe.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f372"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Actually, it’s lines and passages from that paper that New Agers and spiritual commentors quote…. Or, even more accurately, the often-used quotes from that paper are what such people quote. In other words, they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">quote the quotes</em>, rather than the paper itself. (As can be seen in the main image for this essay, requotes often appear in the form of social-media memes.)</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e3f4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="550" data-image-id="1*73J3O0rsBJO4DX06yc9mSA.png" data-width="1512" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*73J3O0rsBJO4DX06yc9mSA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b581"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite all that, ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’ itself is far from being New Age, mystical, spiritual, or idealist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9569"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s now also worth noting here that Wigner actually began to play down the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Specifically, he came to believe that the idea that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+causes+the+collapse+of+the+wave+function%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn0_l6OuLVkFhRmmlH-n2FIiTfo0qmg%3A1707777506189&source=hp&ei=4p3KZbC2CaeohbIP0LCj0AE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcqr8uG6BGn_lJb7bTj7qlZgVewTkkDs&ved=0ahUKEwiwr_D87qaEAxUnVEEAHVDYCBoQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+causes+the+collapse+of+the+wave+function%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjgiY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBjYXVzZXMgdGhlIGNvbGxhcHNlIG9mIHRoZSB3YXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI0ghQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBW6ABW6oBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+causes+the+collapse+of+the+wave+function%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn0_l6OuLVkFhRmmlH-n2FIiTfo0qmg%3A1707777506189&source=hp&ei=4p3KZbC2CaeohbIP0LCj0AE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcqr8uG6BGn_lJb7bTj7qlZgVewTkkDs&ved=0ahUKEwiwr_D87qaEAxUnVEEAHVDYCBoQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+causes+the+collapse+of+the+wave+function%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjgiY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBjYXVzZXMgdGhlIGNvbGxhcHNlIG9mIHRoZSB3YXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI0ghQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBW6ABW6oBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function”</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>leads to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">solipsism</a>. In his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Solipsism+may+be+logically+consistent+with+present+Quantum+Mechanics,+Monism+in+the+sense+of+Materialism+is%C2%A0not.%22&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Solipsism+may+be+logically+consistent+with+present+Quantum+Mechanics,+Monism+in+the+sense+of+Materialism+is%C2%A0not.%22&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>, Wigner argued that “[s]olipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="931b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, even a full commitment to consciousness collapsing the wave function isn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">necessarily</em> tied to idealism. Of course, it has been tied to idealism. Yet it still doesn’t need to be an idealist position. In fact, there are ways of reading wave-function collapse which actually work against idealism, and which some theorists have picked up on.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d3d6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, Wigner also came to emphasise that what’s true at the quantum scale, isn’t also true of “classical” or macroscopic objects and events. Thus, Wigner’s (later?) positions don’t help idealism (or a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness-firs</em>t position) at all. After all, in idealism, literally every object and event (including trees, human beings, acts of sexual intercourse, etc.) is the product of consciousness. Alternatively put, everything is a manifestation (or instantiation) of “universal consciousness”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd37"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Thus, many commentators have deemed the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Wigner’s friend’</a> thought experiment to be a<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reductio ad absurdum</em></a>. See next essay.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="889e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, it’s much less the case that Wigner was an idealist, and more the case that some people stress that he believed that quantum mechanics <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://thegoodreport.co.uk/science-and-technology/quantum-mechanics-materialism/" href="https://thegoodreport.co.uk/science-and-technology/quantum-mechanics-materialism/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spell[ed] the end for materialism”</a>. Indeed, Wigner did write <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6c42"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The principle argument against materialism</i> [] <i>that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principle argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="eebe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At the beginning of ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’, Wigner also told his readers that</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5fc0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong">“most physicists in the then-recent past had been thoroughgoing materialists who would insist that ‘mind’ or ‘soul’ are illusory, and that nature is fundamentally deterministic”</span>.</span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b95f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1 </strong>for a quick take on these two “anti-materialist” passages from Wigner.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ff1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the above said, Wigner himself (at least in one place) did use the word “idealist” about what he called “the concept of the real”. In his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+concept+of+the+real+to+be+arrived+at+shows+considerable+similarity+to+that+of+the+idealist.+As+the+title+indicates%2C+it+is+formulated+as+a+dualism.%22&sca_esv=bcaedf2c29e85c2f&sxsrf=ACQVn08zB6mCziq44e2CkVldBnzHYzIk7g%3A1707740990132&source=hp&ei=Pg_KZfr8BdydhbIPnPeKkAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcodTm_NYvgyfurDCwlKiVFhDYxdeyEs&ved=0ahUKEwj6k9X45qWEAxXcTkEAHZy7AoIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22The+concept+of+the+real+to+be+arrived+at+shows+considerable+similarity+to+that+of+the+idealist.+As+the+title+indicates%2C+it+is+formulated+as+a+dualism.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpgBIlRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIHRoZSByZWFsIHRvIGJlIGFycml2ZWQgYXQgc2hvd3MgY29uc2lkZXJhYmxlIHNpbWlsYXJpdHkgdG8gdGhhdCBvZiB0aGUgaWRlYWxpc3QuIEFzIHRoZSB0aXRsZSBpbmRpY2F0ZXMsIGl0IGlzIGZvcm11bGF0ZWQgYXMgYSBkdWFsaXNtLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+concept+of+the+real+to+be+arrived+at+shows+considerable+similarity+to+that+of+the+idealist.+As+the+title+indicates%2C+it+is+formulated+as+a+dualism.%22&sca_esv=bcaedf2c29e85c2f&sxsrf=ACQVn08zB6mCziq44e2CkVldBnzHYzIk7g%3A1707740990132&source=hp&ei=Pg_KZfr8BdydhbIPnPeKkAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcodTm_NYvgyfurDCwlKiVFhDYxdeyEs&ved=0ahUKEwj6k9X45qWEAxXcTkEAHZy7AoIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22The+concept+of+the+real+to+be+arrived+at+shows+considerable+similarity+to+that+of+the+idealist.+As+the+title+indicates%2C+it+is+formulated+as+a+dualism.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpgBIlRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIHRoZSByZWFsIHRvIGJlIGFycml2ZWQgYXQgc2hvd3MgY29uc2lkZXJhYmxlIHNpbWlsYXJpdHkgdG8gdGhhdCBvZiB0aGUgaWRlYWxpc3QuIEFzIHRoZSB0aXRsZSBpbmRpY2F0ZXMsIGl0IGlzIGZvcm11bGF0ZWQgYXMgYSBkdWFsaXNtLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="eb0b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The concept of the real to be arrived at shows considerable similarity to that of the idealist. As the title indicates, it is formulated as a dualism.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d100"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This isn’t much help to idealists or consciousness-first philosophers either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e24e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, the position Wigner advanced in that paper (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/27901548" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/27901548" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Two Kinds of Reality’</a>) only shows “considerable similarity to that of the idealist”. Thus, even the strong adjective “considerable” still shows that Wigner didn’t deem his “concept of the real” to be actual idealism. (Of course, it might have been idealist without Wigner himself having fully realised that.) What’s more, Wigner then immediately says that his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">concept of the real</em> is actually “formulated as a dualism”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="97aa" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Was Eugene Wigner a Positivist?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="767e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="514" data-image-id="1*1IDnU2Z3y85UJAN7McDDhg.png" data-width="690" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*1IDnU2Z3y85UJAN7McDDhg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="aabf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s fairly hard to decide if Eugene Wigner was an old-style empiricist, a positivist, a phenomenalist, or simply a physicist who endorsed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="274f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One main reason for this is that Wigner wasn’t a philosopher. This means that he didn’t really write enough to go on. That said, Wigner did write more <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical stuff</em> that most physicists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7645"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, it doesn’t really matter which precise <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">ism</em> Wigner falls under because all the philosophical (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">schools</em> mentioned above are basically part of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#British_empiricism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#British_empiricism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">empiricist tradition</a>. Thus, all the differences between these<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>schools<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>don’t really matter that much within the specific and limited context of this essay.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0050"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This issue is complicated even more when it comes to Wigner’s philosophy of mathematics, as perfectly expressed in his well-known article <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’</a>. It would be difficult to place that work within the domain of either empiricism or positivism. Indeed, it’s been classed as an expression of mathematical realism by many, and even as Pythagoreanism by other commentators…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b737"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such is the anomalous nature of mathematics. And that’s something that positivists, empiricists, and materialists have freely acknowledged.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4775"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To return to the central theme.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cd41"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Wigner did often use the terms “impressions” and “sensations” in his paper ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’. Thus, this usage alone squares <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">fairly</em> well with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+philosophy%2C+empiricism+is+an+epistemological+view+which+holds+that+true+knowledge+or+justification+comes+only+or+primarily+from+sensory+experience.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn0-gNdj-8ZIULVrg4aPJdwDSwxNogA%3A1707743562362&source=hp&ei=ShnKZdCdFJqYhbIP84Gc8A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZconWvnD71_GhOuXVZKwfB2nFyrF_8Sc&ved=0ahUKEwjQ6pnD8KWEAxUaTEEAHfMAB_4Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22In+philosophy%2C+empiricism+is+an+epistemological+view+which+holds+that+true+knowledge+or+justification+comes+only+or+primarily+from+sensory+experience.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpgBIkluIHBoaWxvc29waHksIGVtcGlyaWNpc20gaXMgYW4gZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpY2FsIHZpZXcgd2hpY2ggaG9sZHMgdGhhdCB0cnVlIGtub3dsZWRnZSBvciBqdXN0aWZpY2F0aW9uIGNvbWVzIG9ubHkgb3IgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGZyb20gc2Vuc29yeSBleHBlcmllbmNlLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+philosophy%2C+empiricism+is+an+epistemological+view+which+holds+that+true+knowledge+or+justification+comes+only+or+primarily+from+sensory+experience.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn0-gNdj-8ZIULVrg4aPJdwDSwxNogA%3A1707743562362&source=hp&ei=ShnKZdCdFJqYhbIP84Gc8A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZconWvnD71_GhOuXVZKwfB2nFyrF_8Sc&ved=0ahUKEwjQ6pnD8KWEAxUaTEEAHfMAB_4Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22In+philosophy%2C+empiricism+is+an+epistemological+view+which+holds+that+true+knowledge+or+justification+comes+only+or+primarily+from+sensory+experience.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpgBIkluIHBoaWxvc29waHksIGVtcGlyaWNpc20gaXMgYW4gZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpY2FsIHZpZXcgd2hpY2ggaG9sZHMgdGhhdCB0cnVlIGtub3dsZWRnZSBvciBqdXN0aWZpY2F0aW9uIGNvbWVzIG9ubHkgb3IgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGZyb20gc2Vuc29yeSBleHBlcmllbmNlLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following definition</a> of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">empiricism</em>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bced"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In philosophy, <strong class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong">empiricism</strong> is an epistemological view which holds that true knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a728"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, perhaps the term “phenomenalism” best suits Wigner’s position.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f65"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to one form of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">phenomenalism</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22a+physical+object+is+a+kind+of+construction+out+of+our+experiences%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn09LLJaMIDCStuFkDU-hvySJXMIeRA%3A1707743674236&source=hp&ei=uhnKZab5DPCChbIPmNaM4A4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZconyteQT8Ux4fwKAG9tb9Cwmc2TXMPG&ved=0ahUKEwimvsb48KWEAxVwQUEAHRgrA-wQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22a+physical+object+is+a+kind+of+construction+out+of+our+experiences%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQiYSBwaHlzaWNhbCBvYmplY3QgaXMgYSBraW5kIG9mIGNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBvdXQgb2Ygb3VyIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VzIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22a+physical+object+is+a+kind+of+construction+out+of+our+experiences%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn09LLJaMIDCStuFkDU-hvySJXMIeRA%3A1707743674236&source=hp&ei=uhnKZab5DPCChbIPmNaM4A4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZconyteQT8Ux4fwKAG9tb9Cwmc2TXMPG&ved=0ahUKEwimvsb48KWEAxVwQUEAHRgrA-wQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22a+physical+object+is+a+kind+of+construction+out+of+our+experiences%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQiYSBwaHlzaWNhbCBvYmplY3QgaXMgYSBraW5kIG9mIGNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBvdXQgb2Ygb3VyIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VzIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“a physical object is a kind of construction out of our experiences”</a>. In <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Phenomenalism+is+the+view+that+physical+objects%2C+properties%2C+events+%28whatever+is+physical%29+are+reducible+to+mental+objects%2C+properties%2C+events.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Cq6yc-71UDBpLJ2pyj-8ZUbkL4A%3A1707743714404&source=hp&ei=4hnKZabXFpa7hbIPh6q20As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcon8lpQs1QDdukjv_PMo1c8_yGPmpt5&ved=0ahUKEwim0NmL8aWEAxWWXUEAHQeVDboQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Phenomenalism+is+the+view+that+physical+objects%2C+properties%2C+events+%28whatever+is+physical%29+are+reducible+to+mental+objects%2C+properties%2C+events.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpEBIlBoZW5vbWVuYWxpc20gaXMgdGhlIHZpZXcgdGhhdCBwaHlzaWNhbCBvYmplY3RzLCBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzLCBldmVudHMgKHdoYXRldmVyIGlzIHBoeXNpY2FsKSBhcmUgcmVkdWNpYmxlIHRvIG1lbnRhbCBvYmplY3RzLCBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzLCBldmVudHMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Phenomenalism+is+the+view+that+physical+objects%2C+properties%2C+events+%28whatever+is+physical%29+are+reducible+to+mental+objects%2C+properties%2C+events.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Cq6yc-71UDBpLJ2pyj-8ZUbkL4A%3A1707743714404&source=hp&ei=4hnKZabXFpa7hbIPh6q20As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcon8lpQs1QDdukjv_PMo1c8_yGPmpt5&ved=0ahUKEwim0NmL8aWEAxWWXUEAHQeVDboQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Phenomenalism+is+the+view+that+physical+objects%2C+properties%2C+events+%28whatever+is+physical%29+are+reducible+to+mental+objects%2C+properties%2C+events.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpEBIlBoZW5vbWVuYWxpc20gaXMgdGhlIHZpZXcgdGhhdCBwaHlzaWNhbCBvYmplY3RzLCBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzLCBldmVudHMgKHdoYXRldmVyIGlzIHBoeXNpY2FsKSBhcmUgcmVkdWNpYmxlIHRvIG1lbnRhbCBvYmplY3RzLCBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzLCBldmVudHMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">more detail</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="31c0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects, properties, events (whatever is physical) are reducible to mental objects, properties, events.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1a55"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now, in Wigner’s case, it can be said that “sensory experience” and “mental objects, properties, events” are what we have to go on in the case of wave functions and scientific experiments. In fact, Wigner will be quoted explicitly stating this later…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fb60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Okay, then. Perhaps <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“positivism”</a> is a better term for Wigner’s positions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a64"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, a few decades before Wigner’s paper, various <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">logical positivists</a> strayed into the territory of physics and argued that all scientific (or “synthetic”) statements <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be reducible to “perceptions” and “direct observations”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c20f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Of course, it now need hardly be said that all the various <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">isms</em> just discussed had their own problems.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="19a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, it’s now also worth stating that none of the above directly argues (or even implies) that Wigner was at one with 18th-century British empiricists, the logical positivists, etc. Indeed, the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22It+is+at+this+point+that+the+consciousness+enters+the+theory+unavoidably+and+unalterably.+If+one+speaks+in+terms+of+the+wave+function%2C+its+changes+are+coupled+with+the+entering+of+impressions+into+our+consciousness.+If+one+formulates+the+laws+of+quantum+mechanics+in+terms+of+probabilities+of+impressions%2C+these+are+ipso+facto+the+primary+concepts+with+which+one%C2%A0deals.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn08SSEdtkVhHbZsmLdd98dw2xUjICQ%3A1707741629913&source=hp&ei=vRHKZYqwNbuhhbIP776b6A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcofzWrACrmiNn3Z5_mtar3oc8pFFg8i&ved=0ahUKEwjKgt6p6aWEAxW7UEEAHW_fBv0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22It+is+at+this+point+that+the+consciousness+enters+the+theory+unavoidably+and+unalterably.+If+one+speaks+in+terms+of+the+wave+function%2C+its+changes+are+coupled+with+the+entering+of+impressions+into+our+consciousness.+If+one+formulates+the+laws+of+quantum+mechanics+in+terms+of+probabilities+of+impressions%2C+these+are+ipso+facto+the+primary+concepts+with+which+one%C2%A0deals.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22It+is+at+this+point+that+the+consciousness+enters+the+theory+unavoidably+and+unalterably.+If+one+speaks+in+terms+of+the+wave+function%2C+its+changes+are+coupled+with+the+entering+of+impressions+into+our+consciousness.+If+one+formulates+the+laws+of+quantum+mechanics+in+terms+of+probabilities+of+impressions%2C+these+are+ipso+facto+the+primary+concepts+with+which+one%C2%A0deals.%22&sca_esv=22023dca0c0c277d&sxsrf=ACQVn08SSEdtkVhHbZsmLdd98dw2xUjICQ%3A1707741629913&source=hp&ei=vRHKZYqwNbuhhbIP776b6A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcofzWrACrmiNn3Z5_mtar3oc8pFFg8i&ved=0ahUKEwjKgt6p6aWEAxW7UEEAHW_fBv0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22It+is+at+this+point+that+the+consciousness+enters+the+theory+unavoidably+and+unalterably.+If+one+speaks+in+terms+of+the+wave+function%2C+its+changes+are+coupled+with+the+entering+of+impressions+into+our+consciousness.+If+one+formulates+the+laws+of+quantum+mechanics+in+terms+of+probabilities+of+impressions%2C+these+are+ipso+facto+the+primary+concepts+with+which+one%C2%A0deals.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a> alone highlights one fundamental difference:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="88d4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It is at this point that the consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably. If one speaks in terms of the wave function, its changes are coupled with the entering of impressions into our consciousness. If one formulates the laws of quantum mechanics in terms of probabilities of impressions, these are ipso facto the primary concepts with which one deals.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ffd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Why this passage isn’t purely empiricist — or even positivist — will hopefully become clear in what follows.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="d0fa" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Wigner on “Impressions” and “Sensations”</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8a15"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="400" data-image-id="1*LjGfZtHFv8FTbnPCrlC2Ow.png" data-width="818" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*LjGfZtHFv8FTbnPCrlC2Ow.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="46d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already stated, there’s little in Eugene Wigner’s words which can be directly (or strongly) tied to either idealism or to mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5485"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, what about Wigner’s many uses of the words “sensations” and “impressions” in his ‘Remarks On the Mind-Body Question’?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ec1e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whereas New Agers, idealists and spiritual commentators nearly always talk about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness </em>in very vague terms, Wigner himself mainly refers to “impressions” and “sensations”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1163"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relevantly, the word “consciousness” (in this context at least) has grown to have an idealist or even mystical ring to it, whereas Wigner’s “impressions” and “sensations” just seems like an old-style empiricist way of putting things.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1235"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Wigner himself <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">did</em> refer to “consciousness” a few times in that paper!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1880"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In fact he did so in the same passages in which he referred to “impressions” and “sensations”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6784"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, Wigner<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00708653" href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00708653" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="edf9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I believe that the present laws of physics are at least incomplete without a translation into terms of mental phenomena.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a445"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, Wigner’s sensations and impressions occur <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">within consciousness</em> — where else could they occur? </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2 </strong>on this spatial metaphor.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> So, in that rudimentary sense, 18th century empiricists might just as easily and justifiably used the word “consciousness” about their own empiricism — had that word been as fashionable way back then as it is today.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>[John Locke did use the word “consciousness” in the 1690s, but not really in the way that many do so today.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7fff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Wigner stating that we “rely on sensations” isn’t a commitment to idealism. It’s broadly an empiricist position,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and such a position dates<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>back (in various forms) to the 18th century. (Arguably, it dates much further back than that— see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Early_empiricism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Early_empiricism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Such a position was also adopted — if in a “logical” form — by the logical positivists… We’ve had <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">phenomenalism</a> too!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="23e7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of detail, Wigner wrote the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22All+that+quantum+mechanics+purports+to+provide+are+probability+connections+between+subsequent+impressions+(also+called+%27apperceptions%27)+of+the+consciousness,+and+even+though+the+dividing+line+between+the+observer,+whose+consciousness+is+being+affected,+and+the+observed+physical+object+can+be+shifted+towards+the+one+or+the+other+to+a+considerable+degree,+it+cannot+be+eliminated.%22&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22All+that+quantum+mechanics+purports+to+provide+are+probability+connections+between+subsequent+impressions+%28also+called+%27apperceptions%27%29+of+the+consciousness,+and+even+though+the+dividing+line+between+the+observer,+whose+consciousness+is+being+affected,+and+the+observed+physical+object+can+be+shifted+towards+the+one+or+the+other+to+a+considerable+degree,+it+cannot+be+eliminated.%22&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d97f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“All that quantum mechanics purports to provide are probability connections between subsequent impressions (also called ‘apperceptions’) of the consciousness, and even though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="291c"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As far as that passage is concerned, it can be argued that Wigner believed that he was taking the Copenhagenist line to its (as it were) </span><em class="markup--em markup--p-em" style="font-family: arial;">logical conclusion</em><span style="font-family: arial;">. After all, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born etc. also stressed (or at least used) the words “impressions” and “sensations”</span><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong" style="font-family: arial;">. </strong><span style="font-family: times;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Niels+Bohr+and+Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22sensations%22+and+%22impressions%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09nhJ7r0AWlpuz9F2YWQyiZyoPAbA%3A1707778894395&source=hp&ei=TqPKZe-DFveyhbIPvfmOwA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcqxXk0DqJm2WaY9zHRqOS5PXSClOEp9&ved=0ahUKEwjv4umS9KaEAxV3WUEAHb28A_gQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Niels+Bohr+and+Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22sensations%22+and+%22impressions%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkJOaWVscyBCb2hyIGFuZCBXZXJuZXIgSGVpc2VuYmVyZyBvbiAic2Vuc2F0aW9ucyIgYW5kICJpbXByZXNzaW9ucyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjde1AAWJB2cAB4AJABAJgBbKAB3hCqAQQyNi4yuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICBBAhGBXCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIIEAAYgAQYogQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Niels+Bohr+and+Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22sensations%22+and+%22impressions%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09nhJ7r0AWlpuz9F2YWQyiZyoPAbA%3A1707778894395&source=hp&ei=TqPKZe-DFveyhbIPvfmOwA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcqxXk0DqJm2WaY9zHRqOS5PXSClOEp9&ved=0ahUKEwjv4umS9KaEAxV3WUEAHb28A_gQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Niels+Bohr+and+Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22sensations%22+and+%22impressions%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkJOaWVscyBCb2hyIGFuZCBXZXJuZXIgSGVpc2VuYmVyZyBvbiAic2Vuc2F0aW9ucyIgYW5kICJpbXByZXNzaW9ucyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjde1AAWJB2cAB4AJABAJgBbKAB3hCqAQQyNi4yuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICBBAhGBXCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIIEAAYgAQYogQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong" style="font-family: arial;"> </strong><span style="font-family: arial;">Rudolph Carnap and other logical positivists, on the other hand, used terms such as </span><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carnap+-+%22cross-sections+of+experience%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn08AjEYMliW0S9m-2vP0oJx28RyD3w%3A1707779161422&ei=WaTKZbqxGdOohbIPi5qaoA4&ved=0ahUKEwj6wZWS9aaEAxVTVEEAHQuNBuQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carnap+-+%22cross-sections+of+experience%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ0Nhcm5hcCAtICJjcm9zcy1zZWN0aW9ucyBvZiBleHBlcmllbmNlIjIIECEYoAEYwwRIuh5QpwdYoRpwAXgBkAEAmAFfoAHPBaoBATm4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQABiABBiiBOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carnap+-+%22cross-sections+of+experience%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn08AjEYMliW0S9m-2vP0oJx28RyD3w%3A1707779161422&ei=WaTKZbqxGdOohbIPi5qaoA4&ved=0ahUKEwj6wZWS9aaEAxVTVEEAHQuNBuQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carnap+-+%22cross-sections+of+experience%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ0Nhcm5hcCAtICJjcm9zcy1zZWN0aW9ucyBvZiBleHBlcmllbmNlIjIIECEYoAEYwwRIuh5QpwdYoRpwAXgBkAEAmAFfoAHPBaoBATm4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQABiABBiiBOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" style="font-family: arial;" target="_blank">“cross-sections of experience”</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. Indeed (as already stated), the emphasis on </span><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=British+empiricism+and+%22sense+impressions%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn081B0FYXgwX16KYpcQBUsAo0zLVPg%3A1707779180994&ei=bKTKZfKjPP6-hbIP9t-J2A8&ved=0ahUKEwjyicCb9aaEAxV-X0EAHfZvAvsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=British+empiricism+and+%22sense+impressions%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKkJyaXRpc2ggZW1waXJpY2lzbSBhbmQgInNlbnNlIGltcHJlc3Npb25zIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSJFkUJ4FWL9fcAJ4AZABAJgBZ6ABjxqqAQQ0MS4xuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=British+empiricism+and+%22sense+impressions%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn081B0FYXgwX16KYpcQBUsAo0zLVPg%3A1707779180994&ei=bKTKZfKjPP6-hbIP9t-J2A8&ved=0ahUKEwjyicCb9aaEAxV-X0EAHfZvAvsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=British+empiricism+and+%22sense+impressions%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKkJyaXRpc2ggZW1waXJpY2lzbSBhbmQgInNlbnNlIGltcHJlc3Npb25zIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSJFkUJ4FWL9fcAJ4AZABAJgBZ6ABjxqqAQQ0MS4xuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" style="font-family: arial;" target="_blank">“sense impressions”</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> goes back to the British empiricists of the 18th century.</span></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9cdb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet none of the examples cited — certainly not Carnap and the logical positivists — could be deemed to be idealists or people with idealist or “mystical” inclinations…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="33a7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s unless empiricism (if of a 20th-century kind) is actually taken to be a kind of idealism. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[There has been some debate about this when it came to Bishop Berkley. See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0a28"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, it’s now important to tie Wigner’s words about impressions and sensations to the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>wave function. After all, the wave function was central to quantum mechanics after 1926,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and Wigner himself had much to say about it.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="fa82" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Wigner on Impressions and the Wave Function</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="67d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="857" data-image-id="1*PHy9FEsIJUC7RQl-K8wGeg.png" data-width="982" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*PHy9FEsIJUC7RQl-K8wGeg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="216f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Eugene Wigner himself described the wave function in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22This+is+a+mathematical+concept+the+exact+nature+of+which+need+not+concern+us+here%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+composed+of+a+(countable)+infinity+of+numbers.+If+one+knows+these+numbers,+one+can+foresee+the+behavior+of+the+object+as+far+as+it+can+be+foreseen.+More+precisely,+the+wave+function+permits+one+to+foretell+with+what+probabilities+the+object+will+make+one+or+another+impression+on+us+if+we+let+it+interact+with+us+either+directly,+or+indirectly.%22&pg=PA170&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22This+is+a+mathematical+concept+the+exact+nature+of+which+need+not+concern+us+here%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+composed+of+a+%28countable%29+infinity+of+numbers.+If+one+knows+these+numbers,+one+can+foresee+the+behavior+of+the+object+as+far+as+it+can+be+foreseen.+More+precisely,+the+wave+function+permits+one+to+foretell+with+what+probabilities+the+object+will+make+one+or+another+impression+on+us+if+we+let+it+interact+with+us+either+directly,+or+indirectly.%22&pg=PA170&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6b25"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This is a mathematical concept </i>[]<i> it is composed of a (countable) infinity of numbers. If one knows these numbers, one can foresee the behavior of the object as far as it can be foreseen. More precisely, the wave function permits one to foretell with what probabilities the object will make one or another impression on us if we let it interact with us either directly, or indirectly.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="01a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Going into more detail</a>, Wigner then tied the wave function to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">observations</em>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9ee7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Given any object, all the possible knowledge concerning that object can be given as its wave function. </i>[] [T]<i>he wave function is only a suitable language for describing the body of knowledge — gained by observations — which is relevant for predicting the future behaviour of the system.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e2cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And elsewhere:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c455"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[K]<i>nowledge of the wave function does not permit one always to foresee with certainty the sensations one may receive by interacting with a system.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="35ea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Wigner again stressed “impressions” (or “sensations”) when he wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+information+given+by+the+wave+function+is+communicable.+If+someone+else+somehow+determines+the+wave+function+of+a+system,+he+can+tell+me+about+it+and,+according+to+the+theory,+the+probabilities+for+the+possible+different+impressions+(or+%27sensations%27)+will+be+equally+large,+no+matter+whether+he+or+I+interact+with+the+system+in+a+given+fashion.%22&pg=PA171&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+information+given+by+the+wave+function+is+communicable.+If+someone+else+somehow+determines+the+wave+function+of+a+system,+he+can+tell+me+about+it+and,+according+to+the+theory,+the+probabilities+for+the+possible+different+impressions+%28or+%27sensations%27%29+will+be+equally+large,+no+matter+whether+he+or+I+interact+with+the+system+in+a+given+fashion.%22&pg=PA171&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a> words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="abfc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The information given by the wave function is communicable. If someone else somehow determines the wave function of a system, he can tell me about it and, according to the theory, the probabilities for the possible different impressions (or ‘sensations’) will be equally large, no matter whether he or I interact with the system in a given fashion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae7b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Wigner’s words above are really at one with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Copenhagen interpretation</a> of quantum mechanics. As already stated, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, etc.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>often stressed “sensations” and “impressions” too. However, Bohr himself, for example, didn’t often use the word “consciousness” in these specific respects. That said, Wigner quotes Bohr using precisely that word — but not about the wave function or even about quantum mechanics! (Wigner: “In the words of Niels Bohr, ‘The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation’.”</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f3d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, it can be supposed (at least at first) that Wigner goes beyond plain-old positivism (or even Copenhagenism) when he<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>added <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22and+even+though+the+dividing+line+between+the+observer,+whose+consciousness+is+being+affected,+and+the+observed+physical+object+can+be+shifted+towards+the+one+or+the+other+to+a+considerable+degree,+it+cannot+be+eliminated%22&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Theory_and_Measurement/L7r_AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22and+even+though+the+dividing+line+between+the+observer,+whose+consciousness+is+being+affected,+and+the+observed+physical+object+can+be+shifted+towards+the+one+or+the+other+to+a+considerable+degree,+it+cannot+be+eliminated%22&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">these words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9704"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[E]<i>ven though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0603"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now that is truly something that you’d expect a 20th century quantum physicist to write.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="f260"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="cd02"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="682a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1) </strong>There are problems with Eugene Wigner’s account of materialism: <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> Materialism isn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">necessarily</em> incompatible with quantum theory. However, quantum theory certainly was at odds with 19th-century materialism in the 1920s. <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> Empiricists dating back to the 18th century wouldn’t have had any problems with stating that “sense impressions” (if not “thought processes and consciousness”) are “primary”, and that we gain access to the “external world” through our sense impressions (if not through “the content of our consciousness”). Indeed, that last point captured the very essence of empiricism!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d6d4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Of course, idealists historically picked up on the fact that empiricists claimed to gain access to the external world via their sense impressions, and then they logically and philosophically questioned that position. Basically, idealists argued that empiricism led to (subjective) idealism. (It certainly did so with Bishop Berkeley.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4a49"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">As for the second passage. It’s worth remembering that Wigner wrote the following words in 1961:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="eee1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[M]<i>ost physicists in the then-recent past had been thoroughgoing materialists who would insist that ‘mind’ or ‘soul’ are illusory, and that nature is fundamentally deterministic.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fb56"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In 1961, “most physicists” didn’t “insist” upon such things. Apart from the fact that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">most</em> physicists didn’t have much to say about the mind or soul (at least not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> physicists), they certainly — as a whole — weren’t against all mentions of the “mind”. On the other hand, perhaps many physicists would have had a problem with the soul. Better, with the word “soul”. That’s unless the word “soul” was simply deemed to be a synonym of the word “mind” in those days.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5302"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">So perhaps Wigner really meant <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> physicists or simply philosophers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="afcb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Well, even many materialist philosophers didn’t have a serious problem with discussing the mind before 1961. They might sometimes have had a radical take on the mind. (Such as with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gilbert Ryle</a>’s book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Concept of Mind</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>from 1949.) However, they wouldn’t have said that the “mind is illusory”. And that was for the simple reason that it had been given materialist, behavioural, functionalist, etc. explanations before Wigner wrote his words in 1961…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dfdb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Now what about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a975"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Well, that’s another matter…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2a74"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> Of course, the nature — and even existence — of consciousness itself is also contested.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dad6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For example, I used the words “sensations and impressions occur within consciousness” in the essay above. Note the two words “in consciousness”. Surely that’s a spatial metaphor. In other words, why can’t sensations, impressions and other mental <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">things</em> actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">constitute</em> consciousness, rather than be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in it</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e477"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> Some writers have argued that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bishop+Berkeley%27s+empiricism&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09ylMDmvJzBkY00AsMT2h1ITagN0g%3A1707779983942&source=hp&ei=j6fKZbzGN-qwhbIPmriz2AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1nwKVIl1x1jJSREivg_xEagFoLQp7&ved=0ahUKEwj8ya6a-KaEAxVqWEEAHRrcDEsQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bishop+Berkeley%27s+empiricism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxCaXNob3AgQmVya2VsZXkncyBlbXBpcmljaXNtMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jCCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFeoAFeqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bishop+Berkeley%27s+empiricism&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09ylMDmvJzBkY00AsMT2h1ITagN0g%3A1707779983942&source=hp&ei=j6fKZbzGN-qwhbIPmriz2AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1nwKVIl1x1jJSREivg_xEagFoLQp7&ved=0ahUKEwj8ya6a-KaEAxVqWEEAHRrcDEsQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bishop+Berkeley%27s+empiricism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxCaXNob3AgQmVya2VsZXkncyBlbXBpcmljaXNtMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jCCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFeoAFeqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bishop Berkeley’s empiricism</a> morphed into what they called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Subjective idealism">subjective idealism</a>. Other writers have argued that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>it was such a thing from the very beginning.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2c6c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Berkely’s philosophy also ties in with 21st century idealism in that God fulfils much the same role as <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22universal+consciousness%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn08gRw0Pqqn4bjgeqNNd2zfF9GVwkw%3A1707779834285&source=hp&ei=-qbKZaXVD_2ahbIP2JOzoA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1CiBFSw9hAe3PIOp22HNzzCIZHx8g&ved=0ahUKEwiluoDT96aEAxV9TUEAHdjJDPQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22universal+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhkidW5pdmVyc2FsIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MiMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjtCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFroAFrqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22universal+consciousness%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn08gRw0Pqqn4bjgeqNNd2zfF9GVwkw%3A1707779834285&source=hp&ei=-qbKZaXVD_2ahbIP2JOzoA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1CiBFSw9hAe3PIOp22HNzzCIZHx8g&ved=0ahUKEwiluoDT96aEAxV9TUEAHdjJDPQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22universal+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhkidW5pdmVyc2FsIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MiMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjtCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFroAFrqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“universal consciousness”</a> (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09WZyjUKa8SQU3RAFAxrJDrVuSShA%3A1707779867675&source=hp&ei=G6fKZZqhJ8PXhbIP9eS20AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1K_WR_xwuHpf9NfjbU94xoznQEUFA&ved=0ahUKEwjamvbi96aEAxXDa0EAHXWyDSoQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYiY29zbWljIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MiMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjILEC4YkQIYgAQYigUyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESMIIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWigAWiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09WZyjUKa8SQU3RAFAxrJDrVuSShA%3A1707779867675&source=hp&ei=G6fKZZqhJ8PXhbIP9eS20AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcq1K_WR_xwuHpf9NfjbU94xoznQEUFA&ved=0ahUKEwjamvbi96aEAxXDa0EAHXWyDSoQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYiY29zbWljIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MiMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjILEC4YkQIYgAQYigUyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESMIIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWigAWiqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“cosmic consciousness”</a>) does. That’s in the sense that whatever is not directly perceived by a single subject (or even by a collective of subjects), is perceived by God himself (“God in that gap”) in Berkeley’s philosophy. In the case of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+idealism%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09pxv4X2TGIjL3cZZ0v3H8HI1W4zQ%3A1707779908822&ei=RKfKZc3hMamjhbIProqb-AU&ved=0ahUKEwjNk8f296aEAxWpUUEAHS7FBl8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+idealism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiESJjb3NtaWMgaWRlYWxpc20iMgQQABgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI-hxQgAZYmBVwAXgAkAEAmAFzoAG5BKoBAzUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA8ICBBAjGCfCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLEDwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIGEAAYBxgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABgFGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYHhgP4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+idealism%22&sca_esv=4cfa0bda60f78d2e&sxsrf=ACQVn09pxv4X2TGIjL3cZZ0v3H8HI1W4zQ%3A1707779908822&ei=RKfKZc3hMamjhbIProqb-AU&ved=0ahUKEwjNk8f296aEAxWpUUEAHS7FBl8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+idealism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiESJjb3NtaWMgaWRlYWxpc20iMgQQABgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI-hxQgAZYmBVwAXgAkAEAmAFzoAG5BKoBAzUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA8ICBBAjGCfCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLEDwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIGEAAYBxgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABgFGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYHhgP4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“cosmic<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>idealism”</a>, on the other hand, all objects and events are, not perceived by “monotheistic God”: they’re actually instantiations of Universal Consciousness. (To the idealist Bernardo Kastrup, the brain, trees, acts of sexual intercourse, etc. are “images” or “representations” of consciousness.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2c6c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-45838398835943364192024-02-17T07:55:00.000-08:002024-02-17T07:55:55.936-08:00Idealism, Mysticism and the Observer Effect<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*-yqNcHNJsSDwLV8TSA5ApQ.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*-yqNcHNJsSDwLV8TSA5ApQ.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="ac54"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1182"><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">This image is from the YouTube video </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDseO8KBOi8" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDseO8KBOi8" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">‘The Observer Consciousness Effect’</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">. The words embedded within it are from the introduction to this video. The physicists in the image are Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger and Roger Penrose.</strong></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="df4f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Browse through any bookshop’s new-age section </i>[]<i> and you’ll find wild claims confidently asserted about the uncertainty principle [or observer effect], such as that its implications are ‘psychedelic’ and that it heralds ‘cultural revolution.’ </i>[]<i> Consider the following conversation, published in *American Theatre*, between the well-known theatre director Anne Bogart and Kristin Linklater, the noted vocal coach:</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote" name="f7e8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>Linklater: ‘Some thinker has said that the greatest spiritual level is insecurity.’<br />Bogart: ‘Heisenberg proved that. Mathematically.’ <br />Linklater: ‘There you are.’</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote" name="a3f6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[] <i>The uncertainty principle sprang from a purely mathematical approach to atomic physics, where it has a well-defined and highly restricted scope of applicability.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c2fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">— — Robert P. Crease</strong> [See source <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Brief_Guide_to_the_Great_Equations/DhqfBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=asserted+about+the+uncertainty+principle,+such+as+that+its+implications+are+psychedelic+and+that+it+heralds+cultural+revolution.+%5B%5D+Consider+the+following+conversation,+published+in+*American+Theatre*,+between+the+well-known+theatre+director+Anne+Bogart+and+Kristin+Linklater,+the+noted+vocal+coach&pg=PT166&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Brief_Guide_to_the_Great_Equations/DhqfBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=asserted+about+the+uncertainty+principle,+such+as+that+its+implications+are+psychedelic+and+that+it+heralds+cultural+revolution.+%5B%5D+Consider+the+following+conversation,+published+in+*American+Theatre*,+between+the+well-known+theatre+director+Anne+Bogart+and+Kristin+Linklater,+the+noted+vocal+coach&pg=PT166&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="8453"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="bbd0"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Mystical Physics… or Simply Mystical Physicists?</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Does Consciousness Affect Reality?</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) What Is a Scientific Observation?</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Idealism and Scientific Observation</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) An Heisenbergian Interlude: Intrinsic Weirdness</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Consciousness, Making a Mark and Observation</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="292f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many idealists, New Agers and spiritual commentators (at least those who mention the subjects which will follow) have often focused on the “observer effect” in quantum mechanics. (This is the case even when they don’t actually use that precise technical term.)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>They do so because they believe that it strongly ties consciousness to reality (or reality to consciousness). Indeed, such people also believe that the observer effect makes reality a product (or an effect) of consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="80b1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When the observer effect is discussed, the word “mysticism” is often used too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d841"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The word “mysticism” is, admittedly, vague.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3a84"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Copenhagenists</a>, for one, were often accused of “mysticism” in an entirely negative manner. However, New Agers and spiritual commentators use this term positively about the very same physicists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="927f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So why was the word “mysticism” used?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="06b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It was primarily for <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22introducing++consciousness+into+physics%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PVIAFbuUKlk4aYCzqxuctp4N_8Q%3A1707199316038&ei=VMvBZbD4Ae6BhbIP3s6WuAU&ved=0ahUKEwiw8quGhZaEAxXuQEEAHV6nBVcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22introducing++consciousness+into+physics%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKSJpbnRyb2R1Y2luZyAgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpbnRvIHBoeXNpY3MiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEi-SVD9BFi0Q3ABeAGQAQCYAXCgAegDqgEDNS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22introducing++consciousness+into+physics%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PVIAFbuUKlk4aYCzqxuctp4N_8Q%3A1707199316038&ei=VMvBZbD4Ae6BhbIP3s6WuAU&ved=0ahUKEwiw8quGhZaEAxXuQEEAHV6nBVcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22introducing++consciousness+into+physics%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKSJpbnRyb2R1Y2luZyAgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpbnRvIHBoeXNpY3MiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEi-SVD9BFi0Q3ABeAGQAQCYAXCgAegDqgEDNS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“introducing consciousness into physics”</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7606"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The other main sense of “mysticism” (i.e., in this context) refers to physicists being influenced (or inspired) by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mystical+literature&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn09JV-hJAffHEB6Ue7_p-KW8GCwU7Q%3A1707294981403&source=hp&ei=BUHDZaT-Fa7qkvQP3uqOuAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNPFQbF5Ix15yr-OhbRFw52brkdxr5a&ved=0ahUKEwjklJC36ZiEAxUutYQIHV61A0cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=mystical+literature&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNteXN0aWNhbCBsaXRlcmF0dXJlMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iJCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAG3AaABtwGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mystical+literature&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn09JV-hJAffHEB6Ue7_p-KW8GCwU7Q%3A1707294981403&source=hp&ei=BUHDZaT-Fa7qkvQP3uqOuAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNPFQbF5Ix15yr-OhbRFw52brkdxr5a&ved=0ahUKEwjklJC36ZiEAxUutYQIHV61A0cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=mystical+literature&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNteXN0aWNhbCBsaXRlcmF0dXJlMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iJCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAG3AaABtwGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">mystical literature</a> of by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Eastern religions</em></a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a937"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Agers, spiritual commentators and idealists believe that such physicists noted the observer effect (as well as the uncertainty principle, entanglement, complementarity, etc.) precisely because of their prior knowledge of mystical or eastern literature. The New-Age idea is that such physicists also believed that Eastern ideas provided a good philosophical explanation of such issues within physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e0c1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet the vast majority of the physicists who’ve accepted and endorsed the observer effect, entanglement, etc. have done so without ever having read a single word of mystical and/or Eastern<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>literature. Of course, New Agers, spiritual commentators and idealists will (or simply might) respond with the following words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="26d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">That doesn’t matter. Non-mystical physicists are still tapping into phenomena which </span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=consciousness+and+idealism+which+%22ancient+religions+have+known+about+for+millennia%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0f6gSr9CqJxUk1Nx5X5zhs2icqw%3A1707461164706&ei=LMrFZd_gKrejhbIP_82R-A4&ved=0ahUKEwjfpsLB1J2EAxW3UUEAHf9mBO8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=consciousness+and+idealism+which+%22ancient+religions+have+known+about+for+millennia%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiU2NvbnNjaW91c25lc3MgYW5kIGlkZWFsaXNtIHdoaWNoICJhbmNpZW50IHJlbGlnaW9ucyBoYXZlIGtub3duIGFib3V0IGZvciBtaWxsZW5uaWEiSKtFUOAGWKg4cAF4AZABAJgBX6ABiAmqAQIxNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYH&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=consciousness+and+idealism+which+%22ancient+religions+have+known+about+for+millennia%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0f6gSr9CqJxUk1Nx5X5zhs2icqw%3A1707461164706&ei=LMrFZd_gKrejhbIP_82R-A4&ved=0ahUKEwjfpsLB1J2EAxW3UUEAHf9mBO8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=consciousness+and+idealism+which+%22ancient+religions+have+known+about+for+millennia%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiU2NvbnNjaW91c25lc3MgYW5kIGlkZWFsaXNtIHdoaWNoICJhbmNpZW50IHJlbGlnaW9ucyBoYXZlIGtub3duIGFib3V0IGZvciBtaWxsZW5uaWEiSKtFUOAGWKg4cAF4AZABAJgBX6ABiAmqAQIxNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYH&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">ancient religions have known about for millennia</span></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b74"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What ancient religions <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">understood</em> can only tangentially, analogically and with a very-large amount of artistic license be tied to the theories and ideas of quantum mechanics. After all, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anything can be tied to anything</em> if you try hard enough. (This was certainly the case when, for example, Carl Jung’s notion of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">synchronicity</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>was tied to quantum-mechanical theories.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="618d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, it can be argued that this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mysticism</em> best manifested itself in the way in which a very-small number of physicists attempted to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22unify+mind+and+physics%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_hYksa6eXKqFxtvw6wouBj8a6jiQ%3A1707295123028&source=hp&ei=kkHDZfGAPbyzkvQPjZSNuAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNPo2c0ZeqeCKo7Y1-6m8LYDB_Yy2HS&ved=0ahUKEwjxkdX66ZiEAxW8mYQIHQ1KA5cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22unify+mind+and+physics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgidW5pZnkgbWluZCBhbmQgcGh5c2ljcyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiwEFAAWLkJcAB4AJABAJgB0gGgAZQDqgEFMC4xLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22unify+mind+and+physics%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_hYksa6eXKqFxtvw6wouBj8a6jiQ%3A1707295123028&source=hp&ei=kkHDZfGAPbyzkvQPjZSNuAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNPo2c0ZeqeCKo7Y1-6m8LYDB_Yy2HS&ved=0ahUKEwjxkdX66ZiEAxW8mYQIHQ1KA5cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22unify+mind+and+physics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgidW5pZnkgbWluZCBhbmQgcGh5c2ljcyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiwEFAAWLkJcAB4AJABAJgB0gGgAZQDqgEFMC4xLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“unify mind and physics”</a> in the first half of the 20th century.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="112a" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Mystical Physics… or Simply Mystical Physicists?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f51b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="369" data-image-id="1*0b1ZM9uLDCMafVRYeZ-yyg.png" data-width="1430" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*0b1ZM9uLDCMafVRYeZ-yyg.png" /></span></figure><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cbac"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hen a scientist says that he/she believes in god, believers take it to mean that god must be true — because it’s coming from the seekers of objective truth. Not that the believers really needed this validation (they were believers already), but belief is all about <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">post-rationalization</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">confirmation bias</a>. Hence, ‘validation’ from a few scientists goes a long way.</i> []<i> They conveniently forget that a majority of scientists do not believe in god.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d162"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— — — <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">The Other Millennial</strong> [Source <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@phystro/do-scientists-believe-in-god-96b68bd758bd" href="https://medium.com/@phystro/do-scientists-believe-in-god-96b68bd758bd" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e68d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014" href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Mysticism in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy’</a>, the academic <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://hpm.ethz.ch/people/former-team-members/juan-luis-marin.html" href="https://hpm.ethz.ch/people/former-team-members/juan-luis-marin.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Juan Miguel Marin</a> tells us that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hermann Weyl</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Wolfgang Pauli</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="473b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“were both immersed in mysticism, searching for a way to unify mind and physics”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e62b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some readers may ask why the project of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">unifying mind and physics</em> is automatically deemed to be a case of “mysticism”. So perhaps this isn’t an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">automatic</em> thing at all. Yet when it comes to New Agers, spiritual commentators and idealists, it often does seem as if they believe that there’s some kind of automatic link here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="984d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, when Hermann Weyl and Wolfgang Pauli attempted to unify the mystical (if not the mind) with physics, they weren’t doing neuroscience — or, indeed, any kind of science. They had nothing to say about the brain itself. What’s more, physics was only tangentially and analogically linked to this attempted unification of the mind (seen mystically) with physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a16"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, then, Weyl and Pauli were essentially doing <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophy</em> when they attempted to unify mind and physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4a23"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Juan Miguel Marin also asks us <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Did+their+shared+mysticism+have+a+role+to+play+in+whatever+insights+they+gained+or+mistakes+they+made%3F%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn0_gReIuof2jzMLDgsJ322wZB0AeIA%3A1707199031833&source=hp&ei=N8rBZbPVMNKohbIPr-6f6AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcHYRylmQp2MfSZmuRO5ERVz0WBkjXuw&ved=0ahUKEwjzzOf-g5aEAxVSVEEAHS_3B00Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Did+their+shared+mysticism+have+a+role+to+play+in+whatever+insights+they+gained+or+mistakes+they+made%3F%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im0iRGlkIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlZCBteXN0aWNpc20gaGF2ZSBhIHJvbGUgdG8gcGxheSBpbiB3aGF0ZXZlciBpbnNpZ2h0cyB0aGV5IGdhaW5lZCBvciBtaXN0YWtlcyB0aGV5IG1hZGU_wqBbXS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Did+their+shared+mysticism+have+a+role+to+play+in+whatever+insights+they+gained+or+mistakes+they+made%3F%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn0_gReIuof2jzMLDgsJ322wZB0AeIA%3A1707199031833&source=hp&ei=N8rBZbPVMNKohbIPr-6f6AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcHYRylmQp2MfSZmuRO5ERVz0WBkjXuw&ved=0ahUKEwjzzOf-g5aEAxVSVEEAHS_3B00Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Did+their+shared+mysticism+have+a+role+to+play+in+whatever+insights+they+gained+or+mistakes+they+made%3F%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im0iRGlkIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlZCBteXN0aWNpc20gaGF2ZSBhIHJvbGUgdG8gcGxheSBpbiB3aGF0ZXZlciBpbnNpZ2h0cyB0aGV5IGdhaW5lZCBvciBtaXN0YWtlcyB0aGV5IG1hZGU_wqBbXS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following question</a> about <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Arthur Eddington</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Erwin Schrödinger</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1c2a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Did their shared mysticism have a role to play in whatever insights they gained or mistakes they made? </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c703"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The answer to that question may well be “Yes”. After all, this is nothing less than the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/#DistBetwContDiscContJust" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/#DistBetwContDiscContJust" rel="noopener" target="_blank">context of discovery</a>. And <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contexts of discovery</em> are real things.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b1c0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By way of a comic illustration.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e7d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series-7-episode-20-the-relationship-diremption/" href="https://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series-7-episode-20-the-relationship-diremption/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The Relationship Diremption’</a> episode of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Big Bang Theory</em></a> sitcom, the “nerd” character <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Sheldon Cooper</a> admitted that he “didn’t seek out string theory”. Instead, string theory “just hit [him] over the head one day”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e896"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what did Mr Cooper mean by that? The <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22A+bully+chased+me+through+the+school+library+and+hit+me+over+the+head+with+the+biggest+book+he+could%C2%A0find.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ztkRkCqYzN7mTsaMB-_am3O2XKQ%3A1707295359254&source=hp&ei=f0LDZerWDLuGwbkP2PW7iAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNQj_NvJz49QBPtqaUxAh5Fxqadl7tl&ved=0ahUKEwiqkqbr6piEAxU7QzABHdj6DjEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22A+bully+chased+me+through+the+school+library+and+hit+me+over+the+head+with+the+biggest+book+he+could%C2%A0find.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im0iQSBidWxseSBjaGFzZWQgbWUgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgc2Nob29sIGxpYnJhcnkgYW5kIGhpdCBtZSBvdmVyIHRoZSBoZWFkIHdpdGggdGhlIGJpZ2dlc3QgYm9vayBoZSBjb3VsZMKgZmluZC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22A+bully+chased+me+through+the+school+library+and+hit+me+over+the+head+with+the+biggest+book+he+could%C2%A0find.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ztkRkCqYzN7mTsaMB-_am3O2XKQ%3A1707295359254&source=hp&ei=f0LDZerWDLuGwbkP2PW7iAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNQj_NvJz49QBPtqaUxAh5Fxqadl7tl&ved=0ahUKEwiqkqbr6piEAxU7QzABHdj6DjEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22A+bully+chased+me+through+the+school+library+and+hit+me+over+the+head+with+the+biggest+book+he+could%C2%A0find.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im0iQSBidWxseSBjaGFzZWQgbWUgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgc2Nob29sIGxpYnJhcnkgYW5kIGhpdCBtZSBvdmVyIHRoZSBoZWFkIHdpdGggdGhlIGJpZ2dlc3QgYm9vayBoZSBjb3VsZMKgZmluZC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="646c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“A bully chased me through the school library and hit me over the head with the biggest book he could find.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1642"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That book was on string theory. And Sheldon Cooper was hooked on string theory from that day on.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="74f7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This fictional account is obviously a joke. However, it has an element of sociological and psychological truth. Indeed, it’s part of the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>context of discovery.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Of course, the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Discovery-justification-and-falsification" href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Discovery-justification-and-falsification" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context of discovery-context of justification</em></a> distinction may well be a little too neat and tidy for some people. Yet it still has its large degree of truth, its value, and its uses.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="29c9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So if we return to the non-fictional physicists Eddington and Schrödinger.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2316"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s certainly possible that Eddington and Schrödinger <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">might</em> not have had their “insights” had they not also been influenced by mystical literature.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, questions can still be asked about this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2ae2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At the very least, mystical literature would have had a very minimal role to play on these physicists’ actual theories in physics (i.e., the technical stuff they had published in physics journals).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="505d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the specific case of Schrödinger.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0e9c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+philosophy+of+Schr%C3%B6dinger+at+this+time+does+not+appear+to+have+been+influenced+by+his+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+philosophy+of+Schr%C3%B6dinger+at+this+time+does+not+appear+to+have+been+influenced+by+his+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">According to</a> the writer Walter Moore (in his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Schrödinger: Life and Thought</em></a>),</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="dc4f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the philosophy of Schrödinger at this time does not appear to have been influenced by his physics”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8241"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In parallel, Schrödinger also</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f900"><a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22often+said+that+one+cannot+derive+philosophical+conclusions+from+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22often+said+that+one+cannot+derive+philosophical+conclusions+from+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“often said that one cannot derive philosophical conclusions from physics”.</i></span></a></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="99f3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet even when biographical information is included (Marin relies heavily on much <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">context-of-discovery</em> stuff, and Walter Moore obviously mentions it too), it’s still very difficult to establish any concrete, important and relevant links between actual theories in physics and any “eastern” religious texts these named physicists might have read (i.e., at some point in their lives).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d0c9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">does it matter</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a3e7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That is, are their genuinely and purely mystical elements embedded within the actual scientific theories of, say, Eddington and Schrödinger?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="044a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Alternatively, is all this stuff about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">physics-and-the-mystical</em> made up of analogy, metaphor, biography, scientifically irrelevant contexts-of-discovery, wishful thinking, wild interpretations, tangential links and circuitous reasoning?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9c49"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, the vast majority of New Agers and spiritual commentators who mention these ideas from quantum mechanics, and who also frequently drop the names of famous physicists, do so <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exclusively</em> to advance their religious (or spiritual) ideas, causes and goals…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d065"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, such New Agers and spiritual commentators have almost zero interest in physics <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb52"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[There’s a sizable number of writers here on Medium to whom all this applies. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@deepakchopra" href="https://medium.com/@deepakchopra" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a> is one of that number.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6fe5" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Does Consciousness Affect Reality?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1b24"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="849" data-image-id="1*AgyKVSN8LHxLqC0zOf_bsw.png" data-width="640" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*AgyKVSN8LHxLqC0zOf_bsw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="89d8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Juan Miguel Marin also states <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22in+quantum+mechanics%2C+physicists%27+observations+can+sometimes+affect+what+they%27re+observing+on+a+quantum%C2%A0scale.%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn09o2J1W2a3jqCDiUFW-Bgc0f051Fw%3A1707199147311&source=hp&ei=q8rBZeqIEdOUhbIPrv-4yAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcHYu9vDgtBW4PfSZjnRM0QU5aPnIv4q&ved=0ahUKEwiqivC1hJaEAxVTSkEAHa4_DhkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22in+quantum+mechanics%2C+physicists%27+observations+can+sometimes+affect+what+they%27re+observing+on+a+quantum%C2%A0scale.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InEiaW4gcXVhbnR1bSBtZWNoYW5pY3MsIHBoeXNpY2lzdHMnIG9ic2VydmF0aW9ucyBjYW4gc29tZXRpbWVzIGFmZmVjdCB3aGF0IHRoZXkncmUgb2JzZXJ2aW5nIG9uIGEgcXVhbnR1bcKgc2NhbGUuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22in+quantum+mechanics%2C+physicists%27+observations+can+sometimes+affect+what+they%27re+observing+on+a+quantum%C2%A0scale.%22&sca_esv=f8ea33c309cd8c22&sxsrf=ACQVn09o2J1W2a3jqCDiUFW-Bgc0f051Fw%3A1707199147311&source=hp&ei=q8rBZeqIEdOUhbIPrv-4yAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcHYu9vDgtBW4PfSZjnRM0QU5aPnIv4q&ved=0ahUKEwiqivC1hJaEAxVTSkEAHa4_DhkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22in+quantum+mechanics%2C+physicists%27+observations+can+sometimes+affect+what+they%27re+observing+on+a+quantum%C2%A0scale.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InEiaW4gcXVhbnR1bSBtZWNoYW5pY3MsIHBoeXNpY2lzdHMnIG9ic2VydmF0aW9ucyBjYW4gc29tZXRpbWVzIGFmZmVjdCB3aGF0IHRoZXkncmUgb2JzZXJ2aW5nIG9uIGEgcXVhbnR1bcKgc2NhbGUuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b533"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>n quantum mechanics, physicists’ observations can sometimes affect what they’re observing on a quantum scale.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="de60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To put it strongly: that is simply false…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f0b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or, rather, it’s only false if Marin’s words are read in a certain way. More particularly, it depends on how the word “observations” is read.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0bff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The way the general idea above is usually expressed (i.e., by New Agers, spiritual commentators, etc.) makes it seem as if consciousness <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">alone</em> literally affects physical reality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fe3c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At an extreme level, this would simply be a form of telekinesis.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ec76"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The definition of the word “telekinesis” perfectly fits some of the things New Agers, spiritual commentators, and some idealists say about the observer effect. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thus</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cb38"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><i style="font-weight: bold;">“Telekinesis </i>[], </span><i>also known as </i><strong class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong" style="font-style: italic;">Psychokinesis</strong><i>, is a hypothetical psychic ability allowing an individual to influence a physical system without physical interaction.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="05a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet consciousness <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">alone</em> does not affect physical reality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d76e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, observations as they occur in physics can affect reality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9b04"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now let’s tackle the notion of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">observation</em>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6a19" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">What Is a Scientific Observation?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="dbff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="208" data-image-id="1*dIjk0KiDeF1GXOGc36ppZw.png" data-width="844" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*dIjk0KiDeF1GXOGc36ppZw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="13f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One factor which may well seem <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealist</em> to some occurs when one scientist’s observation-based interpretation of an experiment (or<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>experimental space) conflicts with another scientist’s observation-based interpretation of the very same experiment. However, there is no actual causal, telekinetic or otherwise <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affect</em> on the physical world here. It’s simply a case of different scientists coming to different conclusions, formulating different theories (or interpretations), and even “seeing” different things. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1 </strong>on Norwood Russell Hanson.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a497"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>paragraph above can also be deemed to be an indirect reference to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Niels Bohr</a>’s notion of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">complementarity</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">. </em>For example, in one experiment (or observation), a particle is “observed” (or at least posited), and in another experiment, a wave is observed (or posited). That said, it’s usually the different experimental setups which generate the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">complementary</em> results in these cases.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="51d3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, there’s no literal (or purely) “mental impact” on the world here either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="037b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, observations and experiments (or measuring devices) can and do change what is observed. Yet that’s not what New Agers, idealists and Juan Miguel Marin are attempting to tell us.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4a1d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To be crude.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="691a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If a physicist is fumbling around with a given experimental space, then that will affect that space. However, that has little to do with his consciousness — free of all physical manipulations — affecting the world.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0eed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, some believers in the Copenhagen interpretation may argue that we have no right at all to say <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anything</em> about the world <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">as it is </em>free of minds,<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>experiments, manipulations, etc. There may be no problem with that position. However, such people don’t also state that the consciousnesses of physicists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">alone</em> affect what they’re observing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d65"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about the observer effect itself?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c17e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Idealism and Scientific Observation</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="512d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="388" data-image-id="1*Cf7PAuAEbc_FC997iMYoSw.png" data-width="698" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Cf7PAuAEbc_FC997iMYoSw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c397"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Almost every time the word “observer” (or “observation”) is used in physics, some level of physical manipulation of the experimental setup is meant.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5a05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+physics%2C+the+observer+effect+is+the+disturbance+of+an+observed+system+by+the+act+of+observation.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_BELQytZUI0eTRgODsW1qLqmsP_Q%3A1707295843001&source=hp&ei=YkTDZcaPO9GEhbIPjLqhgAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNSc8qMyTUrdzCKjF0xs3z2gHLf2WQY&ved=0ahUKEwjGyPzR7JiEAxVRQkEAHQxdCIAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22In+physics%2C+the+observer+effect+is+the+disturbance+of+an+observed+system+by+the+act+of+observation.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImUiSW4gcGh5c2ljcywgdGhlIG9ic2VydmVyIGVmZmVjdCBpcyB0aGUgZGlzdHVyYmFuY2Ugb2YgYW4gb2JzZXJ2ZWQgc3lzdGVtIGJ5IHRoZSBhY3Qgb2Ygb2JzZXJ2YXRpb24uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+physics%2C+the+observer+effect+is+the+disturbance+of+an+observed+system+by+the+act+of+observation.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn0_BELQytZUI0eTRgODsW1qLqmsP_Q%3A1707295843001&source=hp&ei=YkTDZcaPO9GEhbIPjLqhgAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNSc8qMyTUrdzCKjF0xs3z2gHLf2WQY&ved=0ahUKEwjGyPzR7JiEAxVRQkEAHQxdCIAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22In+physics%2C+the+observer+effect+is+the+disturbance+of+an+observed+system+by+the+act+of+observation.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImUiSW4gcGh5c2ljcywgdGhlIG9ic2VydmVyIGVmZmVjdCBpcyB0aGUgZGlzdHVyYmFuY2Ugb2YgYW4gb2JzZXJ2ZWQgc3lzdGVtIGJ5IHRoZSBhY3Qgb2Ygb2JzZXJ2YXRpb24uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a> basic introduction to the observer effect:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f951"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a9fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The cat is let out of the bag when this account continues in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+is+often+the+result+of+utilizing+instruments+that%2C+by+necessity%2C+alter+the+state+of+what+they+measure+in+some+manner.+A+common+example+is+checking+the+pressure+in+an+automobile+tire%2C+which+causes+some+of+the+air+to+escape%2C+thereby+changing+the+pressure+to+observe%C2%A0it.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn08g2eUVI4y-bA70zvM42dGuPjS_GA%3A1707295888715&source=hp&ei=kETDZZvxKaqrhbIPjYaHkAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNSoJa0bSIkJI6hOwifKq8HSAzpHBRB&ved=0ahUKEwib-eLn7JiEAxWqVUEAHQ3DATIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22This+is+often+the+result+of+utilizing+instruments+that%2C+by+necessity%2C+alter+the+state+of+what+they+measure+in+some+manner.+A+common+example+is+checking+the+pressure+in+an+automobile+tire%2C+which+causes+some+of+the+air+to+escape%2C+thereby+changing+the+pressure+to+observe%C2%A0it.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpMCIlRoaXMgaXMgb2Z0ZW4gdGhlIHJlc3VsdCBvZiB1dGlsaXppbmcgaW5zdHJ1bWVudHMgdGhhdCwgYnkgbmVjZXNzaXR5LCBhbHRlciB0aGUgc3RhdGUgb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGV5IG1lYXN1cmUgaW4gc29tZSBtYW5uZXIuIEEgY29tbW9uIGV4YW1wbGUgaXMgY2hlY2tpbmcgdGhlIHByZXNzdXJlIGluIGFuIGF1dG9tb2JpbGUgdGlyZSwgd2hpY2ggY2F1c2VzIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIGFpciB0byBlc2NhcGUsIHRoZXJlYnkgY2hhbmdpbmcgdGhlIHByZXNzdXJlIHRvIG9ic2VydmXCoGl0LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+is+often+the+result+of+utilizing+instruments+that%2C+by+necessity%2C+alter+the+state+of+what+they+measure+in+some+manner.+A+common+example+is+checking+the+pressure+in+an+automobile+tire%2C+which+causes+some+of+the+air+to+escape%2C+thereby+changing+the+pressure+to+observe%C2%A0it.%22&sca_esv=4117407177bffc2f&sxsrf=ACQVn08g2eUVI4y-bA70zvM42dGuPjS_GA%3A1707295888715&source=hp&ei=kETDZZvxKaqrhbIPjYaHkAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcNSoJa0bSIkJI6hOwifKq8HSAzpHBRB&ved=0ahUKEwib-eLn7JiEAxWqVUEAHQ3DATIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22This+is+often+the+result+of+utilizing+instruments+that%2C+by+necessity%2C+alter+the+state+of+what+they+measure+in+some+manner.+A+common+example+is+checking+the+pressure+in+an+automobile+tire%2C+which+causes+some+of+the+air+to+escape%2C+thereby+changing+the+pressure+to+observe%C2%A0it.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpMCIlRoaXMgaXMgb2Z0ZW4gdGhlIHJlc3VsdCBvZiB1dGlsaXppbmcgaW5zdHJ1bWVudHMgdGhhdCwgYnkgbmVjZXNzaXR5LCBhbHRlciB0aGUgc3RhdGUgb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGV5IG1lYXN1cmUgaW4gc29tZSBtYW5uZXIuIEEgY29tbW9uIGV4YW1wbGUgaXMgY2hlY2tpbmcgdGhlIHByZXNzdXJlIGluIGFuIGF1dG9tb2JpbGUgdGlyZSwgd2hpY2ggY2F1c2VzIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIGFpciB0byBlc2NhcGUsIHRoZXJlYnkgY2hhbmdpbmcgdGhlIHByZXNzdXJlIHRvIG9ic2VydmXCoGl0LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6119"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="18e4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">None of the above even hints at idealism or anything mystical.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To repeat. In physics, there is never any (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">pure</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">act of observation</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bfb8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, all this isn’t just a question of a mind <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">observing</em> an experiment and/or thinking about it. That act of observation includes “utilizing instruments”, and the physical manipulations of the experimental apparatus.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="977a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[In idealism, how can any separation at all be made between consciousness and an experiment? See<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> note 2 </strong>on Bernardo Kastrup’s position.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="215d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this means that the word “observation” can be very misleading.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e2b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are indeed <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">conscious</em> observations (carried out by persons) involved in experiments. However, there are physical elements to all these observations too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d67"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here again readers<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>should note the words “the disturbance of an observed system”. Taken at face value at least, this clearly has nothing to do with (Carl Jung’s) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity#:~:text=During%20his%20career%2C%20Jung%20furnished,events%20where%20something%20other%20than" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity#:~:text=During%20his%20career%2C%20Jung%20furnished,events%20where%20something%20other%20than" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“acausality”</a>, “consciousness affecting reality”, mysticism, etc. It’s to do with the physical disturbances of an experimental setup (or physical arrangement) by the experimenters and their instruments.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="47ef"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, physicists also encounter the problem of making a separation between the behavior of a system, and that system’s interaction with measuring instruments and human experimenters. And that, in turn, leads to the problem of knowing what a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">quantum state</em> is in the first place.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ac0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>specifically, in any <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Double-slit experiment">double-slit experiment</a>, it’s fairly uncontroversial to state that the observation of quantum phenomena by an instrument (or detector) can (or will) change the measured results.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5750"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To repeat. Here it’s said that the an instrument or electronic detector changes the results of the experiment. The very fact that we’re talking about an instrument shows that this isn’t only about consciousness, or even only about (purely mental) observations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6898"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it’s worth mentioning the idea that the quantum realm is often deemed to be “weird” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">regardless</em> of measurements, experiments and conscious observations.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b82a" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">An Heisenbergian Interlude: Intrinsic Weirdness</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b280"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="431" data-image-id="1*i6EgPVC_lWh8_PZgUnoS-w.png" data-width="694" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*i6EgPVC_lWh8_PZgUnoS-w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="297a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The philosopher and historian of science<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Crease" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Crease" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Robert P. Crease</a> (quoted at the beginning) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Equations-Breakthroughs-Pythagoras-Heisenberg/dp/0393337936" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Equations-Breakthroughs-Pythagoras-Heisenberg/dp/0393337936" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bb87"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The strangeness of the uncertainty principle is not due to the measurement process disturbing the object measured, which would be a feature of any Newtonian theory involving exchange of particles. Nor is it due to the presence of statistics. Rather, the strangeness of quantum mechanics is that quantum formulations are not ‘about’ a real or ideal object in the conventional sense.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c29"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This position doesn’t help the mystical or idealist position either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8e93"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, this essentially Heisenbergian passage doesn’t even mention “consciousness” or “the observer”. Instead, it can be taken to advance the position that the quantum realm is (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">intrinsically weird. </em>That is, it is weird regardless of consciousness or the minds of physicists. Thus, this is hard position to directly (or even indirectly) connect to either idealism or to mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5cf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite all that, a double-slit experiment’s results have indeed been <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">interpreted</em> (with a stress on the word “interpreted”) as telling us that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+can+affect+reality%22&sca_esv=aa66105456fbfd1b&sxsrf=ACQVn0-KgwDpo8shHhE-hn3HrCGAyA1Mzg%3A1707486691552&source=hp&ei=4y3GZZLSH6aChbIPrLqimAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcY78wJd6vMNmhtPM0Hfu9hlMFwByMK7&ved=0ahUKEwjSz9PNs56EAxUmQUEAHSydCGMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+can+affect+reality%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIiY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBjYW4gYWZmZWN0IHJlYWxpdHkiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIzAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBoQGgAaEBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+can+affect+reality%22&sca_esv=aa66105456fbfd1b&sxsrf=ACQVn0-KgwDpo8shHhE-hn3HrCGAyA1Mzg%3A1707486691552&source=hp&ei=4y3GZZLSH6aChbIPrLqimAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcY78wJd6vMNmhtPM0Hfu9hlMFwByMK7&ved=0ahUKEwjSz9PNs56EAxUmQUEAHSydCGMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+can+affect+reality%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIiY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBjYW4gYWZmZWN0IHJlYWxpdHkiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIzAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBoQGgAaEBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“consciousness can affect reality”</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="615a" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Consciousness, Making a Mark and Observation</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="812a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="864" data-image-id="1*63DpNMQ5WnZGHcR2JZG9zg.png" data-width="568" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*63DpNMQ5WnZGHcR2JZG9zg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="767a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many physicists are keen to stress that an “observer” needn’t be a conscious being — it simply needs to be a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument" rel="noopener" target="_blank">scientific instrument</a> of some kind. Of course, minds need to read (or interpret) the instrument’s readings or “marks”. However, that alone hardly seems like a strong argument for idealism and/or for mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ce10"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mark</em> is made before it is (further) registered by (the consciousness of) a physicist. In addition, the, say, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22clicks+of+a+detector%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_fV5GASBgpf6pewnS6L17hz8yovw%3A1707461859021&source=hp&ei=4szFZcCiPK-jhbIP8bausAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcXa8wuDt7WTNOti9cymyxmN-57z1irT&ved=0ahUKEwjAm8qM152EAxWvUUEAHXGbC1YQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22clicks+of+a+detector%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYiY2xpY2tzIG9mIGEgZGV0ZWN0b3IiMgUQIRigAUicCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAF0oAF0qgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22clicks+of+a+detector%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_fV5GASBgpf6pewnS6L17hz8yovw%3A1707461859021&source=hp&ei=4szFZcCiPK-jhbIP8bausAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcXa8wuDt7WTNOti9cymyxmN-57z1irT&ved=0ahUKEwjAm8qM152EAxWvUUEAHXGbC1YQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22clicks+of+a+detector%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYiY2xpY2tzIG9mIGEgZGV0ZWN0b3IiMgUQIRigAUicCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAF0oAF0qgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“clicks of a detector”</a> can only be noted by a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">conscious</em> experimental physicist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c3a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it still seems obvious that a physicist (or consciousness) would be required to make sense of, say, a thermometer’s registration.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8cd4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Erwin Schrödinger (who’s often pressganged into the idealist and mystical school) conveniently discussed both measurement and consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7083"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, in Schrödinger’s published lectures<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Matter-Tarner-Lectures-1956/dp/B0000CK37O" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Matter-Tarner-Lectures-1956/dp/B0000CK37O" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Mind and Matter</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> (</strong>1956/58),<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>he argued that</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="fa7e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0d55"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So even if Schrödinger was influenced by mystical literature (though not when it came to his actual theories in physics), nothing in the passage above is (or need be) necessarily tied to anything mystical or idealist — not even his introduction of the word “consciousness”. In other words, the logical or philosophical point being made above is entirely free of any mystical and/or idealist connotations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc23"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, the thermometer still registered <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">something</em> regardless of any “consciousness” that later (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">made sense</em> of that registration. More precisely, the thermometer must have gone through a certain physical process which ended up with a particular physical change. What’s more, all this must have happened<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> before</em> any mind gave it a (to use Schrödinger’s word again) “meaning”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="03ea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, the thermostat’s state as it was <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">before</em> it was read or interpreted is of little (or even no) use to the physicist. However, it must still have had a physical state before it was read. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3</strong> on the Copenhagenist position on this matter.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> In other words, the thermostat must have been in state <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> even before it was read or interpreted, and it was still in that state when it was read or interpreted.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="00e8"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="89a1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Notes</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="9756"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> The latter issue was first extensively discussed by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Russell_Hanson" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Russell_Hanson" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Norwood Russell Hanson</a> in his well-known paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/HANSAS-8" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/HANSAS-8" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Seeing and Seeing As’</a>, which was published in 1969. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Russell_Hanson#Work" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Russell_Hanson#Work" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a> too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dbe6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2) </strong>In terms of idealism (or at least a certain brand of idealism), it simply can’t be said <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affects reality</em>. That’s because reality <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">itself</em> is already supposed to be “universal consciousness”. So, on an idealist reading, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affecting reality</em> would actually be an example of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">affecting consciousness.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d13c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Interestingly, the idealist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn09YFr-o2B213_cpK-Tj0gZ5T6WQ4g%3A1707461105176&source=hp&ei=8cnFZbX0CMTGhbIP34Oc4AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcXYAY3YkxwFsqQVWLzyVGohIW-yRZcc&ved=0ahUKEwj1sI-l1J2EAxVEY0EAHd8BBywQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMgoQIxiABBiKBRgnMgQQIxgnMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESJ0IUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAV6gAV6qAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn09YFr-o2B213_cpK-Tj0gZ5T6WQ4g%3A1707461105176&source=hp&ei=8cnFZbX0CMTGhbIP34Oc4AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZcXYAY3YkxwFsqQVWLzyVGohIW-yRZcc&ved=0ahUKEwj1sI-l1J2EAxVEY0EAHd8BBywQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMgoQIxiABBiKBRgnMgQQIxgnMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESJ0IUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAV6gAV6qAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>makes this point against other people who also deem themselves to be idealists. Specifically, Kastrup argues against those who say that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+brain+as+a+conduit+of+universal+consciousness%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn080nGFFa1BffeGiVP_XpVVgU1Lv0g%3A1707460789820&ei=tcjFZeLSMZ2phbIPrKCeuAM&ved=0ahUKEwiigeGO052EAxWdVEEAHSyQBzcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22the+brain+as+a+conduit+of+universal+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMyJ0aGUgYnJhaW4gYXMgYSBjb25kdWl0IG9mIHVuaXZlcnNhbCBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIjIHECMYrgIYJ0jwMFDtBliQGnABeAGQAQCYAWWgAb8HqgEEMTIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQABiABBiiBMICBhAhGAoYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+brain+as+a+conduit+of+universal+consciousness%22&sca_esv=c2f3d0b18548173b&sxsrf=ACQVn080nGFFa1BffeGiVP_XpVVgU1Lv0g%3A1707460789820&ei=tcjFZeLSMZ2phbIPrKCeuAM&ved=0ahUKEwiigeGO052EAxWdVEEAHSyQBzcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22the+brain+as+a+conduit+of+universal+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMyJ0aGUgYnJhaW4gYXMgYSBjb25kdWl0IG9mIHVuaXZlcnNhbCBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIjIHECMYrgIYJ0jwMFDtBliQGnABeAGQAQCYAWWgAb8HqgEEMTIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQABiABBiiBMICBhAhGAoYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the brain is a conduit of universal consciousness”</a>. (The <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://drnataliedyer.com/blog/intuition-and-the-filter-theory-of-consciousness/" href="https://drnataliedyer.com/blog/intuition-and-the-filter-theory-of-consciousness/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“filter theory”</a> of the brain.) He corrects them by saying that the brain too is an “image” or “representation” of consciousness. In Kastrup’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2011/12/brain-as-knot-of-consciousness.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2011/12/brain-as-knot-of-consciousness.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="72ec"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">“The idea that the brain does not generate consciousness, but instead limits and filters it down, seems to require </em></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#Mind-matter_and_mind-body_dualism" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#Mind-matter_and_mind-body_dualism" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">dualism </em></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">and contradict idealism. After all, if all reality exists in consciousness, how can the brain — which is a part of reality — filter down that which gives it its very existence? A water filter is not made of water; a coffee filter is not made of coffee; how can a consciousness filter be made of consciousness? It sounds like a self-referential contradiction.”</em></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a5fb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Thus, consciousness can’t be “a conduit” of consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="687a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">3)</strong> It can be supposed that idealists and perhaps some anti-realists can ask the following question:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="19b9"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How do you know the both states of the thermometer — both before and after any registration or interpretation — fully coincide?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="179d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This is a question that’s hard to take seriously in physics. However, it does have at least some philosophica</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">l </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">substance.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="179d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-68966927988758512602024-02-14T20:58:00.000-08:002024-02-14T20:58:18.442-08:00Dear David Chalmers, Is it logically possible that logical possibilities mislead us?…<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">And also waste our time? More accurately, is it logically possible that a<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> fixation</em> on logical possibilities could mislead us and/or waste our time?</span></p><section class="section section--body" name="117d"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f0b1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*sMVi4-W7MkSh9f6LmvL_jA.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*sMVi4-W7MkSh9f6LmvL_jA.png" /></span></figure></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="9182"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b76"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Why Fixate on Logical Possibilities?</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Not All Logical Possibilities Are Equal</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Schrödinger’s Cat</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Philosophically Necessary Logical Possibilities</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="217b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following essay will mainly be considering David Chalmers’ paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://consc.net/papers/qualia.html" href="https://consc.net/papers/qualia.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’</a>. However, absent, fading and dancing<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>qualia won’t actually be tackled in detail. Instead, the subject of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">logical possibility</em> will be discussed (as it were)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in the abstract</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f2c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There is one bizarre passage (at least when taken out of context) in Chalmers’ aforesaid paper which summarises everything that will be tackled here. (It’s broken up into three parts.) It goes <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22To+summarize%3A+we+have+established+that+if+absent+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+fading+qualia+are+possible%3B+if+inverted+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+dancing+qualia+are+possible.%22&sca_esv=de7a49ba27450786&sxsrf=ACQVn0-b3Rkvqdvhx12chgVO5CKbfwDW9w%3A1706717293977&source=hp&ei=bXC6ZaPCObmFhbIPnq2NkAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbp-fbA27TLsRuFg83WvNG3TP9MYfETU&ved=0ahUKEwjjrKawgYiEAxW5QkEAHZ5WAxIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22To+summarize%3A+we+have+established+that+if+absent+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+fading+qualia+are+possible%3B+if+inverted+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+dancing+qualia+are+possible.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqsBIlRvIHN1bW1hcml6ZTogd2UgaGF2ZSBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCB0aGF0IGlmIGFic2VudCBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlLCB0aGVuIGZhZGluZyBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlOyBpZiBpbnZlcnRlZCBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlLCB0aGVuIGRhbmNpbmcgcXVhbGlhIGFyZSBwb3NzaWJsZS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22To+summarize%3A+we+have+established+that+if+absent+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+fading+qualia+are+possible%3B+if+inverted+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+dancing+qualia+are+possible.%22&sca_esv=de7a49ba27450786&sxsrf=ACQVn0-b3Rkvqdvhx12chgVO5CKbfwDW9w%3A1706717293977&source=hp&ei=bXC6ZaPCObmFhbIPnq2NkAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbp-fbA27TLsRuFg83WvNG3TP9MYfETU&ved=0ahUKEwjjrKawgYiEAxW5QkEAHZ5WAxIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22To+summarize%3A+we+have+established+that+if+absent+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+fading+qualia+are+possible%3B+if+inverted+qualia+are+possible%2C+then+dancing+qualia+are+possible.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqsBIlRvIHN1bW1hcml6ZTogd2UgaGF2ZSBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCB0aGF0IGlmIGFic2VudCBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlLCB0aGVuIGZhZGluZyBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlOyBpZiBpbnZlcnRlZCBxdWFsaWEgYXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlLCB0aGVuIGRhbmNpbmcgcXVhbGlhIGFyZSBwb3NzaWJsZS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">as follows</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1a6f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>e have established that if absent qualia are possible, then fading qualia are possible; if inverted qualia are possible, then dancing qualia are possible.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3411"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e0d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But it is implausible that fading qualia are possible, and it is extremely implausible that dancing qualia are possible. It is therefore extremely implausible that absent qualia and inverted qualia are possible.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="61f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22It+follows+that+we+have+good+reason+to+believe+that+the+principle+of+organizational+invariance+is+true,+and+that+functional+organization+fully+determines+conscious+experience.%22&pg=PA274&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22It+follows+that+we+have+good+reason+to+believe+that+the+principle+of+organizational+invariance+is+true,+and+that+functional+organization+fully+determines+conscious+experience.%22&pg=PA274&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">concludes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="884a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It follows that we have good reason to believe that the principle of organizational invariance is true, and that functional organization fully determines conscious experience.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ddfa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage has it all!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6748"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It displays a (as it were)<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> fixation</em> with logical possibility, along with the strong belief that considering (or analysing) such possibilities leads to very real and important philosophical conclusions. Indeed, perhaps, non-philosophical conclusions too!</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="dddb" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Why Fixate on Logical Possibilities?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f50a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="429" data-image-id="1*Bnsn7vpVtJIZpOnHccTftQ.png" data-width="1160" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Bnsn7vpVtJIZpOnHccTftQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not only the paper ‘Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’ which focuses so much on logical possibility. David Chalmers’ well-known and brilliant book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/david-chalmers-book-the-conscious-mind-in-search-of-a-fundamental-theory-2092e6a9c683" href="https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/david-chalmers-book-the-conscious-mind-in-search-of-a-fundamental-theory-2092e6a9c683" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Conscious Mind</em></a> also seems to introduce one logical possibility or another on almost every page. Specifically, in that book Chalmers discusses “an angel world”, “flying telephones”, “ectoplasm”, and a monkey who writes <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Hamlet</em>. Admittedly, most of these logical possibilities are of little (philosophical) interest to Chalmers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0a0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So why is that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6f3e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s only partly because such logical possibilities are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">hugely improbable</em>. However, the main reason why Chalmers has no deep interest in them is that they don’t help him philosophically.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="cd27"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="859" data-image-id="1*_xRg1s83Y6f6z67jJfT6DA.png" data-width="656" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*_xRg1s83Y6f6z67jJfT6DA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f5a7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The logical possibilities of an angel world, flying telephones, ectoplasm, and a monkey who writes <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Hamlet </em>have just been mentioned. However, and as many readers will know, it’s primarily <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" rel="noopener" target="_blank">(philosophical) zombies</a> which Chalmers (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specialises in</em>. And it’s these logically-possible beings who (or is it <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">which</em>?) help him philosophically.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6df0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So despite all the logical possibilities which Chalmers does discuss, almost his entire philosophical project is motivated by it being (to use <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22logically+possible+that+a+*physical*+replica+of+a+conscious+system+might+lack+conscious+experience%22&sca_esv=5dc046d76a77b1b0&sxsrf=ACQVn08gVzYZwKn7XqOpsIosOlDI93kmTw%3A1706586578963&source=hp&ei=0nG4ZdjPOK-1hbIPvf-gyAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbh_4vV1VQlT5c4KMpXWYhH1zST9-PCb&ved=0ahUKEwjYgMO2moSEAxWvWkEAHb0_CKkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22logically+possible+that+a+*physical*+replica+of+a+conscious+system+might+lack+conscious+experience%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImQibG9naWNhbGx5IHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoYXQgYSAqcGh5c2ljYWwqIHJlcGxpY2Egb2YgYSBjb25zY2lvdXMgc3lzdGVtIG1pZ2h0IGxhY2sgY29uc2Npb3VzIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22logically+possible+that+a+*physical*+replica+of+a+conscious+system+might+lack+conscious+experience%22&sca_esv=5dc046d76a77b1b0&sxsrf=ACQVn08gVzYZwKn7XqOpsIosOlDI93kmTw%3A1706586578963&source=hp&ei=0nG4ZdjPOK-1hbIPvf-gyAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbh_4vV1VQlT5c4KMpXWYhH1zST9-PCb&ved=0ahUKEwjYgMO2moSEAxWvWkEAHb0_CKkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22logically+possible+that+a+*physical*+replica+of+a+conscious+system+might+lack+conscious+experience%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImQibG9naWNhbGx5IHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoYXQgYSAqcGh5c2ljYWwqIHJlcGxpY2Egb2YgYSBjb25zY2lvdXMgc3lzdGVtIG1pZ2h0IGxhY2sgY29uc2Npb3VzIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">his own words</a>)</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6499"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“logically possible that a *physical* replica of a conscious system might lack conscious experience”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="de80"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, all the other logical possibilities Chalmers discusses are but a means to add meat to that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> logical possibility. And that specific logical possibility, in turn, serves the purpose of showing readers that (to use Chalmers’ own words) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Chalmers+-+%22materialism+is+false%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0-azFzVt-WVBLDFUMI8GiRBXy6-uQ%3A1706772597530&source=hp&ei=dUi7ZfPoHa-chbIPkre-4Ag&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtWhdedz1KLNJww43_aVUTa6ZslE7Ah&ved=0ahUKEwiz94qzz4mEAxUvTkEAHZKbD4wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Chalmers+-+%22materialism+is+false%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidEYXZpZCBDaGFsbWVycyAtICJtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSBpcyBmYWxzZSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIo0dQAFjYPXAAeACQAQCYAcEBoAH4DKoBBDE1LjO4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQLCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICChAAGIAEGEYY-wHCAgYQABgWGB4&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Chalmers+-+%22materialism+is+false%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0-azFzVt-WVBLDFUMI8GiRBXy6-uQ%3A1706772597530&source=hp&ei=dUi7ZfPoHa-chbIPkre-4Ag&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtWhdedz1KLNJww43_aVUTa6ZslE7Ah&ved=0ahUKEwiz94qzz4mEAxUvTkEAHZKbD4wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Chalmers+-+%22materialism+is+false%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidEYXZpZCBDaGFsbWVycyAtICJtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSBpcyBmYWxzZSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIo0dQAFjYPXAAeACQAQCYAcEBoAH4DKoBBDE1LjO4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQLCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICChAAGIAEGEYY-wHCAgYQABgWGB4&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“materialism is false”</a>. In other words, if it’s “logically possible that a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">physical </em>replica of a conscious system might lack conscious experience”, then materialism can’t be true…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="753f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or so the argument goes.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a2b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1 </strong>for the full argument.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="abae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To quote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fZZQHOfdAAC&pg=PA140&dq=I+am+not+the+first+to+use+the+argument+from+logical+posssibility+against+materialism.+Indeed,+I+think+that+in+one+form+or+another+it+is+the+fundamental+antimaterialist+argument+in+the+philosophy+of+mind.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw0eiWzK_jAhVzURUIHfOsAJMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=I%20am%20not%20the%20first%20to%20use%20the%20argument%20from%20logical%20posssibility%20against%20materialism.%20Indeed,%20I%20think%20that%20in%20one%20form%20or%20another%20it%20is%20the%20fundamental%20antimaterialist%20argument%20in%20the%20philosophy%20of%20mind.&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fZZQHOfdAAC&pg=PA140&dq=I+am+not+the+first+to+use+the+argument+from+logical+posssibility+against+materialism.+Indeed,+I+think+that+in+one+form+or+another+it+is+the+fundamental+antimaterialist+argument+in+the+philosophy+of+mind.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw0eiWzK_jAhVzURUIHfOsAJMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=I%20am%20not%20the%20first%20to%20use%20the%20argument%20from%20logical%20posssibility%20against%20materialism.%20Indeed,%20I%20think%20that%20in%20one%20form%20or%20another%20it%20is%20the%20fundamental%20antimaterialist%20argument%20in%20the%20philosophy%20of%20mind.&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Chalmers himself</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c38e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I am not the first to use the argument from logical possibility against materialism. Indeed, I think that in one form or another it is the fundamental anti-materialist argument in the philosophy of mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a2bf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So citing logical possibilities isn’t just another philosophical tool — it is (arguably) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the</em> philosophical tool to fight materialism. (Perhaps much more too.) Yet Chalmers also suggests that we shouldn’t get <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22too+worried+about+odd+things+that+happen+in+logically+possible+worlds%22&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22too+worried+about+odd+things+that+happen+in+logically+possible+worlds%22&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“too worried about odd things that happen in logically possible worlds”</a>. That said, he then immediately takes that back by adding that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22there+is+room+to+be+perturbed+by+what+is+going+on%22&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/0fZZQHOfdAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22there+is+room+to+be+perturbed+by+what+is+going+on%22&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“there is room to be perturbed by what is going on”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f991"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In more detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3036"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers and certain other philosophers require logical possibilities in order to advance their case against <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">materialism</em>. What’s more, their arguments only work if one deeply considers all sorts of strange logical possibilities. Of course, this isn’t to say that materialists (as well as other kinds of philosopher) don’t themselves rely on (or simply use) logical possibilities in various ways. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Joseph Levine’s words quoted in <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> However, they don’t do so nearly so often as philosophers like David Chalmers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="db66"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now let’s forget anti-materialism and speak in broader terms.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fdb5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When a philosopher cites various logical possibilities, all sorts of philosophical positions become available… or become <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">possible</em>. That’s primarily because once a given philosopher sets a particular logical possibility among the pigeons, then it’s surely the duty of other philosophers to tackle that logical possibility. However, if they don’t do so, then surely (some philosophers may argue) they’re philosophical (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philistines</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e935"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To repeat. Chalmers’ main use of logical possibilities is to argue against materialism. That said, in the paper ‘Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia’, Chalmers’ main purpose it to show his readers that (as already quoted) “functional organization fully determines conscious experience”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc31"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[On the surface at least, that last quoted claim seems to work against Chalmers’ anti-materialism. However, that issue can’t be tackled in this essay either. See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3</strong>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="967b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Not All Logical Possibilities Are Equal</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="221c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="423" data-image-id="1*MBT5HczFqvq7nK56iR2yTw.png" data-width="715" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*MBT5HczFqvq7nK56iR2yTw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a6bc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">David Chalmers argues that all the logical possibilities he discusses are “intelligible”. However, he also believes that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> of them are “implausible”.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>In more detail, Chalmers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mere+intelligibility+does+not+bear+on+this%2C+any+more+than+the+intelligibility+of+a+world+without+relativity+can+falsify+Einstein%27s+theory.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn09IEcITtqvBFf5Tod2h1Tj01g9OhQ%3A1706772833322&source=hp&ei=YUm7ZavJEYSjkdUP3IifmAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtXcawdjcTwHqFwM5lT6s1Y8Nl73Ppq&ved=0ahUKEwjr_cKj0ImEAxWEUaQEHVzEB7MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Mere+intelligibility+does+not+bear+on+this%2C+any+more+than+the+intelligibility+of+a+world+without+relativity+can+falsify+Einstein%27s+theory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IowBIk1lcmUgaW50ZWxsaWdpYmlsaXR5IGRvZXMgbm90IGJlYXIgb24gdGhpcywgYW55IG1vcmUgdGhhbiB0aGUgaW50ZWxsaWdpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGEgd29ybGQgd2l0aG91dCByZWxhdGl2aXR5IGNhbiBmYWxzaWZ5IEVpbnN0ZWluJ3MgdGhlb3J5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mere+intelligibility+does+not+bear+on+this%2C+any+more+than+the+intelligibility+of+a+world+without+relativity+can+falsify+Einstein%27s+theory.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn09IEcITtqvBFf5Tod2h1Tj01g9OhQ%3A1706772833322&source=hp&ei=YUm7ZavJEYSjkdUP3IifmAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtXcawdjcTwHqFwM5lT6s1Y8Nl73Ppq&ved=0ahUKEwjr_cKj0ImEAxWEUaQEHVzEB7MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Mere+intelligibility+does+not+bear+on+this%2C+any+more+than+the+intelligibility+of+a+world+without+relativity+can+falsify+Einstein%27s+theory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IowBIk1lcmUgaW50ZWxsaWdpYmlsaXR5IGRvZXMgbm90IGJlYXIgb24gdGhpcywgYW55IG1vcmUgdGhhbiB0aGUgaW50ZWxsaWdpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGEgd29ybGQgd2l0aG91dCByZWxhdGl2aXR5IGNhbiBmYWxzaWZ5IEVpbnN0ZWluJ3MgdGhlb3J5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">states the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ea94"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Mere intelligibility does not bear on this, any more than the intelligibility of a world without relativity can falsify Einstein’s theory.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e97e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers doesn’t believe that such logical possibilities are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">implausible</em> because they’re <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">merely</em>… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">logical possibilities</em>. Instead, it’s only <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> logical possibilities which Chalmers finds<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> implausible</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c1df"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers also states (in one place) that the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22hypotheses+here+are+coherent%2C+but+there+is+little+reason+to+embrace+them%22&sca_esv=3e7f809a2cf65a29&sxsrf=ACQVn098HaLYqt2JfENyUQKOzIoktta91w%3A1706772879845&source=hp&ei=j0m7ZY6aMaKehbIPu-e3-AY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtXn_qh2Ev6MFfdnKYpjrZus3xsys5l&ved=0ahUKEwjOndq50ImEAxUiT0EAHbvzDW8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22hypotheses+here+are+coherent%2C+but+there+is+little+reason+to+embrace+them%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkoiaHlwb3RoZXNlcyBoZXJlIGFyZSBjb2hlcmVudCwgYnV0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGxpdHRsZSByZWFzb24gdG8gZW1icmFjZSB0aGVtIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22hypotheses+here+are+coherent%2C+but+there+is+little+reason+to+embrace+them%22&sca_esv=3e7f809a2cf65a29&sxsrf=ACQVn098HaLYqt2JfENyUQKOzIoktta91w%3A1706772879845&source=hp&ei=j0m7ZY6aMaKehbIPu-e3-AY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtXn_qh2Ev6MFfdnKYpjrZus3xsys5l&ved=0ahUKEwjOndq50ImEAxUiT0EAHbvzDW8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22hypotheses+here+are+coherent%2C+but+there+is+little+reason+to+embrace+them%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkoiaHlwb3RoZXNlcyBoZXJlIGFyZSBjb2hlcmVudCwgYnV0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGxpdHRsZSByZWFzb24gdG8gZW1icmFjZSB0aGVtIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“hypotheses here are coherent, but there is little reason to embrace them”</a>. In other words, coherency <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">alone</em> won’t force his readers to embrace such hypotheses. Yet elsewhere Chalmers also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fZZQHOfdAAC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=the+question+is+not+whether+it+is+plausible+that+zombies+could+exist+in+our+world,+or+even+whether+the+idea+of+a+zombie+is+a+natural+one;+the+question+is+whether+the+notion+of+a+zombie+is+conceptually+coherent&source=bl&ots=qmBYbeCVPK&sig=ACfU3U0MJ_lMRYpNta0tzVrjbN98ZZP4rQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5oYO1zK_jAhWQasAKHZlVDI4Q6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20question%20is%20not%20whether%20it%20is%20plausible%20that%20zombies%20could%20exist%20in%20our%20world,%20or%20even%20whether%20the%20idea%20of%20a%20zombie%20is%20a%20natural%20one;%20the%20question%20is%20whether%20the%20notion%20of%20a%20zombie%20is%20conceptually%20coherent&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fZZQHOfdAAC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=the+question+is+not+whether+it+is+plausible+that+zombies+could+exist+in+our+world,+or+even+whether+the+idea+of+a+zombie+is+a+natural+one;+the+question+is+whether+the+notion+of+a+zombie+is+conceptually+coherent&source=bl&ots=qmBYbeCVPK&sig=ACfU3U0MJ_lMRYpNta0tzVrjbN98ZZP4rQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5oYO1zK_jAhWQasAKHZlVDI4Q6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20question%20is%20not%20whether%20it%20is%20plausible%20that%20zombies%20could%20exist%20in%20our%20world,%20or%20even%20whether%20the%20idea%20of%20a%20zombie%20is%20a%20natural%20one;%20the%20question%20is%20whether%20the%20notion%20of%20a%20zombie%20is%20conceptually%20coherent&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">says that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ba98"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the question is not whether it is plausible that zombies could exist in our world, or even whether the idea of a zombie is a natural one; the question is whether the notion of a zombie is conceptually coherent”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4925"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To Chalmers, “the notion of a zombie” is indeed “conceptually coherent”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d8ac"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, the notion of a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical zombie</em></a> has many other <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical things</em> going for it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8c15"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Chalmers does argue that a lot can be derived from something’s “intelligibility”. This means that Chalmers stance on these “scenarios” (or logical possibilities) doesn’t entirely depend on <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mere intelligibility</em> — it also depends on where these scenarios<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>lead.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="81f3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, then, Chalmers isn’t questioning all modal speculations (or the use of thought-experiments) — <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">clearly not</em>! To Chalmers, it depends on which precise logical possibility he’s discussing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="da74"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers goes further on the subject of logical possibility.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7371"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He also believes that some of possibilities he discusses <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">could</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(which is another modal term)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>also be “actual”. Yet this isn’t entirely clear because — as already stated — Chalmers does admit that some (even many) of the logical possibilities he discusses are “implausible”. That said, Chalmers must believe that such logical possibilities still need to be philosophically analysed (or dissected) in order to justifiably conclude that they’re <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">implausible</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="48ff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, even when logical possibilities can’t (or don’t) lead to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">actualities</em>, then they may<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> still</em> be worth discussing — at least from a philosophical point of view.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3295" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Schrödinger’s <strong class="markup--strong markup--h3-strong">Cat</strong></span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ac42"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="543" data-image-id="1*B8KUz-OJ5YLtR8A79MaNcQ.png" data-width="858" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*B8KUz-OJ5YLtR8A79MaNcQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="be8a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">David Chalmers discusses <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Erwin Schrödinger</a>'s famous thought-experiment about a cat in a box<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(i.e.,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Schrödinger’s cat</a>). He does so in order to compare what he’s doing to what Schrödinger did way back in 1935.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="de21"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Chalmers+-+%22to+see+these+thought-experiments+as+playing+a+role+analogous+to+that+played+by+the+%27Schrodinger%27s+cat%27+thought-experiment+in+the+interpretation+of+quantum+mechanics.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn09cngnyDPNqahi7H7F0A2jmNE3SdA%3A1706773030719&ei=Jkq7ZbajK_W4hbIPjJC98Ac&ved=0ahUKEwi2ztSB0YmEAxV1XEEAHQxID34Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=David+Chalmers+-+%22to+see+these+thought-experiments+as+playing+a+role+analogous+to+that+played+by+the+%27Schrodinger%27s+cat%27+thought-experiment+in+the+interpretation+of+quantum+mechanics.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiuAFEYXZpZCBDaGFsbWVycyAtICJ0byBzZWUgdGhlc2UgdGhvdWdodC1leHBlcmltZW50cyBhcyBwbGF5aW5nIGEgcm9sZSBhbmFsb2dvdXMgdG8gdGhhdCBwbGF5ZWQgYnkgdGhlICdTY2hyb2RpbmdlcidzIGNhdCcgdGhvdWdodC1leHBlcmltZW50IGluIHRoZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBxdWFudHVtIG1lY2hhbmljcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Chalmers+-+%22to+see+these+thought-experiments+as+playing+a+role+analogous+to+that+played+by+the+%27Schrodinger%27s+cat%27+thought-experiment+in+the+interpretation+of+quantum+mechanics.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn09cngnyDPNqahi7H7F0A2jmNE3SdA%3A1706773030719&ei=Jkq7ZbajK_W4hbIPjJC98Ac&ved=0ahUKEwi2ztSB0YmEAxV1XEEAHQxID34Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=David+Chalmers+-+%22to+see+these+thought-experiments+as+playing+a+role+analogous+to+that+played+by+the+%27Schrodinger%27s+cat%27+thought-experiment+in+the+interpretation+of+quantum+mechanics.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiuAFEYXZpZCBDaGFsbWVycyAtICJ0byBzZWUgdGhlc2UgdGhvdWdodC1leHBlcmltZW50cyBhcyBwbGF5aW5nIGEgcm9sZSBhbmFsb2dvdXMgdG8gdGhhdCBwbGF5ZWQgYnkgdGhlICdTY2hyb2RpbmdlcidzIGNhdCcgdGhvdWdodC1leHBlcmltZW50IGluIHRoZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBxdWFudHVtIG1lY2hhbmljcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="fce3"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Perhaps it is useful to see these thought-experiments as playing a role analogous to that played by the ‘Schrodinger’s cat’ thought-experiment in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7388"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers then explains this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">analogous role</em> in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s+thought-experiment+does+not+deliver+a+decisive+verdict+in+favour+of+one+interpretation+or+another%2C+but+it+brings+out+various+plausibilities++and+implausibilities+in+the+interpretations%2C+and+it+is+something+that+every+interpretation+must+ultimately+come+to+grips%C2%A0with.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn08wg8KE80vakyBnYCgt7kaMqQA3PQ%3A1706773296935&source=hp&ei=MEu7Ze3DNuC7hbIP6_ud0A0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtZQJxhQfkkpfzaa9GJG5fcCWqV7MP_&ved=0ahUKEwjtm8uA0omEAxXgXUEAHet9B9oQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s+thought-experiment+does+not+deliver+a+decisive+verdict+in+favour+of+one+interpretation+or+another%2C+but+it+brings+out+various+plausibilities++and+implausibilities+in+the+interpretations%2C+and+it+is+something+that+every+interpretation+must+ultimately+come+to+grips%C2%A0with.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip0CIlNjaHLDtmRpbmdlcidzIHRob3VnaHQtZXhwZXJpbWVudCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkZWxpdmVyIGEgZGVjaXNpdmUgdmVyZGljdCBpbiBmYXZvdXIgb2Ygb25lIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9yIGFub3RoZXIsIGJ1dCBpdCBicmluZ3Mgb3V0IHZhcmlvdXMgcGxhdXNpYmlsaXRpZXMgIGFuZCBpbXBsYXVzaWJpbGl0aWVzIGluIHRoZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBpdCBpcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhhdCBldmVyeSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBtdXN0IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgY29tZSB0byBncmlwc8Kgd2l0aC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s+thought-experiment+does+not+deliver+a+decisive+verdict+in+favour+of+one+interpretation+or+another%2C+but+it+brings+out+various+plausibilities++and+implausibilities+in+the+interpretations%2C+and+it+is+something+that+every+interpretation+must+ultimately+come+to+grips%C2%A0with.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn08wg8KE80vakyBnYCgt7kaMqQA3PQ%3A1706773296935&source=hp&ei=MEu7Ze3DNuC7hbIP6_ud0A0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtZQJxhQfkkpfzaa9GJG5fcCWqV7MP_&ved=0ahUKEwjtm8uA0omEAxXgXUEAHet9B9oQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s+thought-experiment+does+not+deliver+a+decisive+verdict+in+favour+of+one+interpretation+or+another%2C+but+it+brings+out+various+plausibilities++and+implausibilities+in+the+interpretations%2C+and+it+is+something+that+every+interpretation+must+ultimately+come+to+grips%C2%A0with.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip0CIlNjaHLDtmRpbmdlcidzIHRob3VnaHQtZXhwZXJpbWVudCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkZWxpdmVyIGEgZGVjaXNpdmUgdmVyZGljdCBpbiBmYXZvdXIgb2Ygb25lIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9yIGFub3RoZXIsIGJ1dCBpdCBicmluZ3Mgb3V0IHZhcmlvdXMgcGxhdXNpYmlsaXRpZXMgIGFuZCBpbXBsYXVzaWJpbGl0aWVzIGluIHRoZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBpdCBpcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhhdCBldmVyeSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBtdXN0IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgY29tZSB0byBncmlwc8Kgd2l0aC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="992d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Schrödinger’s thought-experiment does not deliver a decisive verdict in favour of one interpretation or another, but it brings out various plausibilities and implausibilities in the interpretations, and it is something that every interpretation must ultimately come to grips with.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e403"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers finally <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+a+similar+way%2C+any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%2C+and+some+will+handle+them+better+than+others.+In+this+way%2C+the+virtues+and+drawbacks+of+various+theories+are+clarified.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0_pAi8sT4K6GreJutX0OtlmjlsZ0A%3A1706773092750&source=hp&ei=ZEq7ZZeXK_qphbIP2o2AyA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtYdJ_u9Jav5iP9oOLG4a3YRN6sCHQg&ved=0ahUKEwiX2Zyf0YmEAxX6VEEAHdoGAOkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22In+a+similar+way%2C+any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%2C+and+some+will+handle+them+better+than+others.+In+this+way%2C+the+virtues+and+drawbacks+of+various+theories+are+clarified.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvMBIkluIGEgc2ltaWxhciB3YXksIGFueSB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBtdXN0IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgY29tZSB0byBncmlwcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBmYWRpbmcgYW5kIGRhbmNpbmcgcXVhbGlhIHNjZW5hcmlvcywgYW5kIHNvbWUgd2lsbCBoYW5kbGUgdGhlbSBiZXR0ZXIgdGhhbiBvdGhlcnMuIEluIHRoaXMgd2F5LCB0aGUgdmlydHVlcyBhbmQgZHJhd2JhY2tzIG9mIHZhcmlvdXMgdGhlb3JpZXMgYXJlIGNsYXJpZmllZC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+a+similar+way%2C+any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%2C+and+some+will+handle+them+better+than+others.+In+this+way%2C+the+virtues+and+drawbacks+of+various+theories+are+clarified.%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0_pAi8sT4K6GreJutX0OtlmjlsZ0A%3A1706773092750&source=hp&ei=ZEq7ZZeXK_qphbIP2o2AyA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtYdJ_u9Jav5iP9oOLG4a3YRN6sCHQg&ved=0ahUKEwiX2Zyf0YmEAxX6VEEAHdoGAOkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22In+a+similar+way%2C+any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%2C+and+some+will+handle+them+better+than+others.+In+this+way%2C+the+virtues+and+drawbacks+of+various+theories+are+clarified.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvMBIkluIGEgc2ltaWxhciB3YXksIGFueSB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBtdXN0IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgY29tZSB0byBncmlwcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBmYWRpbmcgYW5kIGRhbmNpbmcgcXVhbGlhIHNjZW5hcmlvcywgYW5kIHNvbWUgd2lsbCBoYW5kbGUgdGhlbSBiZXR0ZXIgdGhhbiBvdGhlcnMuIEluIHRoaXMgd2F5LCB0aGUgdmlydHVlcyBhbmQgZHJhd2JhY2tzIG9mIHZhcmlvdXMgdGhlb3JpZXMgYXJlIGNsYXJpZmllZC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">concludes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="26bc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In a similar way, any theory of consciousness must ultimately come to grips with the fading and dancing qualia scenarios, and some will handle them better than others. In this way, the virtues and drawbacks of various theories are clarified.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ba4d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Schrödinger’s thought-experiment never became an actual <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">experiment</em>. That is, it has never been carried out… on a cat. In addition, Schrödinger himself never believed that a cat could be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">both</em> alive and dead at one and the same time. On the other hand, other physicists — such as the theorists of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">many worlds</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>— do believe that. (Such physicists believe that the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">possible</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>alive-and-dead-cat <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition" rel="noopener" target="_blank">superposition</a> would be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">actual </em>if the experiment were ever successfully carried out.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="51c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In basic terms, Schrödinger intended his thought-experiment to illustrate the bizarre nature of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Copenhagen interpretation</a> of quantum mechanics. Indeed, Schrödinger took it to be a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Reductio ad absurdum">reductio ad absurdum</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d52e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Schrödinger was categorically against the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas Chalmers sees himself as considering various logical possibilities, and (as it’s often put) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seeing where they all lead</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="87ea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oddly enough, Schrödinger can be seen as actually arguing against taking outlandish possibilities (in this case, quantum superpositions) seriously. Yet, ironically, he concocted a though-experiment (which includes the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">logical possibility</em> of a cat being both alive and dead) to advance his case.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1cec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, it can now be acknowledged that both Schrödinger’s thought-experiment and Chalmers’ many logical possibilities do indeed (as Chalmers puts it) “bring out various plausibilities and implausibilities”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1bee" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Philosophically Necessary Logical Possibilities?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4c10"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="469" data-image-id="1*mnId0uwa_aio5vG1FmcG1Q.png" data-width="695" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*mnId0uwa_aio5vG1FmcG1Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7bea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s also odd that Chalmers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PE14xNpxnTq_jgeuxo9T8mTPWDw%3A1706773370693&source=hp&ei=eku7ZZiqKMS_hbIPkL2h2AE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtZijeuDqGuut5AClMMSixfl00u-I8y&ved=0ahUKEwiYz-Gj0omEAxXEX0EAHZBeCBsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgiYW55IHRoZW9yeSBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIG11c3QgdWx0aW1hdGVseSBjb21lIHRvIGdyaXBzIHdpdGggdGhlIGZhZGluZyBhbmQgZGFuY2luZyBxdWFsaWEgc2NlbmFyaW9zIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%22&sca_esv=40208b2a209bf428&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PE14xNpxnTq_jgeuxo9T8mTPWDw%3A1706773370693&source=hp&ei=eku7ZZiqKMS_hbIPkL2h2AE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbtZijeuDqGuut5AClMMSixfl00u-I8y&ved=0ahUKEwiYz-Gj0omEAxXEX0EAHZBeCBsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22any+theory+of+consciousness+must+ultimately+come+to+grips+with+the+fading+and+dancing+qualia+scenarios%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgiYW55IHRoZW9yeSBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIG11c3QgdWx0aW1hdGVseSBjb21lIHRvIGdyaXBzIHdpdGggdGhlIGZhZGluZyBhbmQgZGFuY2luZyBxdWFsaWEgc2NlbmFyaW9zIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">states that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ed7a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“any theory of consciousness must ultimately come to grips with the fading and dancing qualia scenarios”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b400"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">when the vast majority of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">theories of consciousness</em> haven’t done so. Indeed, many theorists and philosophers of consciousness have hardly considered these “scenarios” at all. That’s primarily because the interest in fading, inverted and dancing qualia has been an obsession of (only certain) analytic philosophers for only a limited period of philosophical history. (Roughly, since 1982 and onward. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c07e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So can we now also conclude that many theorists and philosophers of consciousness don’t consider inverted, dancing and fading qualia because they don’t place such a high premium on the status of (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mere</em>) logical possibilities?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1339"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Alternatively, perhaps it’s just <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">these</em> logical possibilities (i.e., inverted, dancing and fading qualia) which they don’t care too much about.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b6f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, it does seem a little over the top when David Chalmers states that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>“any theory of consciousness<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>must ultimately come to grips with the fading and dancing qualia scenarios”. Indeed, is that even the case when it comes to Chalmers’ famous and endlessly-discussed <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phil-zombies</em>?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="e691"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1c25"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="679c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> David Chalmers’ precise argument<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/XtgiH-feUyIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22+1.+In+our+world%2C+there+are+conscious+experiences.+2.+There+is+a+logically+possible+world+physically+identical+to+ours%2C+in+which+the+positive+facts+about+consciousness+in+our+world+do+not+hold.+3.+Therefore%2C+facts+about+consciousness+are+further+facts+about+our+world%2C+over+and+above+the+physical+facts.+4.+So+materialism+is+false.%22&pg=PT135&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Conscious_Mind/XtgiH-feUyIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22+1.+In+our+world%2C+there+are+conscious+experiences.+2.+There+is+a+logically+possible+world+physically+identical+to+ours%2C+in+which+the+positive+facts+about+consciousness+in+our+world+do+not+hold.+3.+Therefore%2C+facts+about+consciousness+are+further+facts+about+our+world%2C+over+and+above+the+physical+facts.+4.+So+materialism+is+false.%22&pg=PT135&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8fbe"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“ 1. In our world, there are conscious experiences.<br />2. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold.<br />3. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts.<br />4. So materialism is false.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="57df"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">2)</strong> Is there no escape from logical possibility? The American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Levine_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Levine_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Joseph Levine</a> believes so — at least in the case of qualia. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Would+could+just+deny+that+what+is+conceivable+is+possible.+%5B%5D+But+now+we+have+an+answer+as+well+to+the+multiple+realizability+argument.+After+all,+what+makes+us+so+confident+that+QR+could+be+realized+in+a+variety+of+different+ways%3F+Isn+t+it+just+the+same+conceivability+we+appealed+to+in+the+conceivability+argument%3F&pg=PA278&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Would+could+just+deny+that+what+is+conceivable+is+possible.+%5B%5D+But+now+we+have+an+answer+as+well+to+the+multiple+realizability+argument.+After+all,+what+makes+us+so+confident+that+QR+could+be+realized+in+a+variety+of+different+ways%3F+Isn+t+it+just+the+same+conceivability+we+appealed+to+in+the+conceivability+argument%3F&pg=PA278&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="80cd"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Would could just deny that what is conceivable is possible. </i>[]<i> But now we have an answer as well to the multiple realizability argument. After all, what makes us so confident that QR </i>[a particular “property of experience”]<i> could be realized in a variety of different ways? Isn’t it just the same conceivability we appealed to in the conceivability argument?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1243"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> David Chalmers’ mitigated functionalism is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conscious-Experience-Thomas-Metzinger/dp/0907845053" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conscious-Experience-Thomas-Metzinger/dp/0907845053" rel="noopener" target="_blank">well summed up</a> by the German philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Metzinger</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7372"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Although the appropriate functional states are *nomologically sufficient* for conscious experience, they need not be *constitutive* of conscious experience. This leads to an interesting position which Chalmers calls non-reductive functionalism*, which is compatible both with property dualism and with some forms of physicalism.”</i></span></blockquote><p><br /></p><p> </p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-80024923335724620092024-02-14T06:25:00.000-08:002024-02-14T06:25:05.851-08:00The Sociology and History of Qualia<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*hGAjzqoetXddGw9wsIMKhg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*hGAjzqoetXddGw9wsIMKhg.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="5fdb"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb3c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In an earlier essay (called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/consciousness-qualia-who-cares-about-how-they-seem-to-us-64dd5ff86348" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/consciousness-qualia-who-cares-about-how-they-seem-to-us-64dd5ff86348" target="_blank">‘Consciousness & Qualia: Who Cares About ‘How They Seem To Us’?’</a>) I discussed <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a>’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>words, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“consciousness is a datum in its own right”</a>. I asked how Goff’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">that is consciousness</em> stands within the context of all the books and papers which he — and other people — have read on the subject of consciousness.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8b99"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="492" data-image-id="1*coN-0ak1T2reOW-s4TnvXw.png" data-width="488" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*coN-0ak1T2reOW-s4TnvXw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">The English philosopher Philip Goff.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="cb19"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, I asked whether any clear distinction at all can be made between such a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum </em>and all the things philosophers and laypersons have written and said about such a thing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0fc8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My point was that if (as some people put it) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualiaphile&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn09sFLKFoObGyBJixhDB1ZY72jYvaw%3A1706337363516&source=hp&ei=U6S0ZeGbHZKJ9u8PpqCk0As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbSyY5aTf2b0hDFQ8wKEQKSSouPxvKqt&ved=0ahUKEwihkauD-vyDAxWShP0HHSYQCboQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=qualiaphile&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgtxdWFsaWFwaGlsZTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESIEQUABYpwpwAHgAkAEAmAGGAaAB1AGqAQMxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualiaphile&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn09sFLKFoObGyBJixhDB1ZY72jYvaw%3A1706337363516&source=hp&ei=U6S0ZeGbHZKJ9u8PpqCk0As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbSyY5aTf2b0hDFQ8wKEQKSSouPxvKqt&ved=0ahUKEwihkauD-vyDAxWShP0HHSYQCboQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=qualiaphile&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgtxdWFsaWFwaGlsZTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESIEQUABYpwpwAHgAkAEAmAGGAaAB1AGqAQMxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qualiaphiles</em></a> have read lots of (or even just some) books on consciousness (or, alternatively, if they’ve come across the word “qualia” many times), then surely that will impact on how they describe and/or theorise about any ostensibly (to use Goff’s words again) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">“private seemings”</a> they may have.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2cb4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The entire issue was summed up by saying that as soon as a (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">layperson</em> starts to use the word “qualia”, then that’s precisely the moment that he or she stops being a layperson (i.e., at least when it comes to qualia). More to the point, the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Patricia Churchland</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>once said that the word <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“‘qualia’ is a term of art, which was introduced by philosophers”</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e504"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, such a layperson doesn’t need to be an expert, or to have read lots of academic papers on qualia.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d4f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the above was put in more technical terms by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Daniel Dennett</a> in 1991.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="796a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dennett argued (as quoted by Martin Kurthen) that talk of “consciousness” was largely down to a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dennett+-+%22huge+complex+of+memes%22&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn0-13lppoJ0okW2G_96bARab16ED0w%3A1706337567966&ei=H6W0ZerMOvG0hbIPnLS7wAg&ved=0ahUKEwiq2Ovk-vyDAxVxWkEAHRzaDogQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Dennett+-+%22huge+complex+of+memes%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIURlbm5ldHQgLSAiaHVnZSBjb21wbGV4IG9mIG1lbWVzIjIIECEYoAEYwwRItytQzgtYvyZwAXgAkAEAmAFgoAHSBqoBAjEwuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECEYChigARjDBOIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dennett+-+%22huge+complex+of+memes%22&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn0-13lppoJ0okW2G_96bARab16ED0w%3A1706337567966&ei=H6W0ZerMOvG0hbIPnLS7wAg&ved=0ahUKEwiq2Ovk-vyDAxVxWkEAHRzaDogQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Dennett+-+%22huge+complex+of+memes%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIURlbm5ldHQgLSAiaHVnZSBjb21wbGV4IG9mIG1lbWVzIjIIECEYoAEYwwRItytQzgtYvyZwAXgAkAEAmAFgoAHSBqoBAjEwuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECEYChigARjDBOIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“huge complex of memes”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1ea1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, the American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Rorty</a> (also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22to+become+aware+of+qualia+is+the+same+thing+as+learning+how+to+make+judgments+about+qualia%22&pg=PA119&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22to+become+aware+of+qualia+is+the+same+thing+as+learning+how+to+make+judgments+about+qualia%22&pg=PA119&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">quoted by Kurthen</a>) argued that</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2c23"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“to become aware of qualia is the same thing as learning how to make judgments about qualia”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="62fb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course (as we’ll see), qualiaphiles may well happily admit that “qualia” is a term which was indeed “introduced by philosophers”. However, they may add: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">So what</em>! They may then argue that “qualia” is a term that was simply introduced to capture <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">something</em> that is real, and which has a reality regardless of the recent history of the term itself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="53ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, there are many ways to approach our <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">descriptions</em> of qualia. However, the whole issue is summed up by the neuroscientist and philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=neurologist+Martin+Kurthen&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn095ckuaRY2tmQuR2Z83b_EVQ_Kxgw%3A1706337174540&ei=lqO0ZfPQIJ2DhbIP1buE-As&ved=0ahUKEwjz856p-fyDAxWdQUEAHdUdAb8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=neurologist+Martin+Kurthen&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGm5ldXJvbG9naXN0IE1hcnRpbiBLdXJ0aGVuMgkQABgHGB4YsANIxDlQzAZYvyZwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=neurologist+Martin+Kurthen&sca_esv=601943063&sxsrf=ACQVn095ckuaRY2tmQuR2Z83b_EVQ_Kxgw%3A1706337174540&ei=lqO0ZfPQIJ2DhbIP1buE-As&ved=0ahUKEwjz856p-fyDAxWdQUEAHdUdAb8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=neurologist+Martin+Kurthen&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGm5ldXJvbG9naXN0IE1hcnRpbiBLdXJ0aGVuMgkQABgHGB4YsANIxDlQzAZYvyZwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Martin Kurthen</a> (who’ll be featured in this essay) when he <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=It+is+not+helpful+to+view+*the+way+things+seem+to+us*+as+stable+elements+of+our+inner+mental+lives+and+thus+as+mental+sub+entities+with+a+constant+constitution+at+all.&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=It+is+not+helpful+to+view+*the+way+things+seem+to+us*+as+stable+elements+of+our+inner+mental+lives+and+thus+as+mental+sub+entities+with+a+constant+constitution+at+all.&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="049b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“[i]t is not helpful to view *the way things seem to us* as stable elements of our inner mental lives and thus as mental sub entities with a constant constitution at all”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="351c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="79a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kurthen then offers his readers his own alternative to this. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=rather+ephemeral+phenomena+dependent+on+cultural,+historical,+evolutionary,+linguistic,+etc.+-+preconditions+-+and+they+can+change+with+a+modification+of+any+of+these+preconditions&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=rather+ephemeral+phenomena+dependent+on+cultural,+historical,+evolutionary,+linguistic,+etc.+-+preconditions+-+and+they+can+change+with+a+modification+of+any+of+these+preconditions&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">argues that</a> the ways things<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> seem to us</em> are</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="fdd5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“rather ephemeral phenomena, dependent on cultural, historical, evolutionary, linguistic, etc. — preconditions — and they can change with a modification of any of these preconditions”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d3c3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the above ties in with another theme to be tackled in this essay: the distinction which can be made — and which has been made — between our <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">descriptions of qualia</em>, and qualia as they are (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in themselves</em>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f623" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Qualia and Descriptions of Qualia</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="33d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="480" data-image-id="1*0cABYGd0w96zUFH9W4ewGA.png" data-width="843" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*0cABYGd0w96zUFH9W4ewGA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f482"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Martin Kurthen <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crucially+depend+on+a+very+special+history+and+a+very+special+constitution+of+a+linguistic+or%2C+more+general%2C+social+community%22%0D%0A&sca_esv=601949146&sxsrf=ACQVn0_mqnMpQKg7femUHrGKhs6TqQoS1w%3A1706337878244&source=hp&ei=Vqa0ZaCbDOfikdUPguWseA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbS0Zo5aDFF1lFWOPHX2vlqor1VzwMM4&ved=0ahUKEwignuP4-_yDAxVncaQEHYIyCw8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22crucially+depend+on+a+very+special+history+and+a+very+special+constitution+of+a+linguistic+or%2C+more+general%2C+social+community%22%0D%0A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoABImNydWNpYWxseSBkZXBlbmQgb24gYSB2ZXJ5IHNwZWNpYWwgaGlzdG9yeSBhbmQgYSB2ZXJ5IHNwZWNpYWwgY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uIG9mIGEgbGluZ3Vpc3RpYyBvciwgbW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsLCBzb2NpYWwgY29tbXVuaXR5IgpIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crucially+depend+on+a+very+special+history+and+a+very+special+constitution+of+a+linguistic+or%2C+more+general%2C+social+community%22%0D%0A&sca_esv=601949146&sxsrf=ACQVn0_mqnMpQKg7femUHrGKhs6TqQoS1w%3A1706337878244&source=hp&ei=Vqa0ZaCbDOfikdUPguWseA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbS0Zo5aDFF1lFWOPHX2vlqor1VzwMM4&ved=0ahUKEwignuP4-_yDAxVncaQEHYIyCw8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22crucially+depend+on+a+very+special+history+and+a+very+special+constitution+of+a+linguistic+or%2C+more+general%2C+social+community%22%0D%0A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoABImNydWNpYWxseSBkZXBlbmQgb24gYSB2ZXJ5IHNwZWNpYWwgaGlzdG9yeSBhbmQgYSB2ZXJ5IHNwZWNpYWwgY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uIG9mIGEgbGluZ3Vpc3RpYyBvciwgbW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsLCBzb2NpYWwgY29tbXVuaXR5IgpIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us</a> that how we <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">describe </em>qualia may well</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e28a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“crucially depend on a very special history and a very special constitution of a linguistic or, more general, social community”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7514"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The claim that that qualia “depend on” these things may seem odd (or even bizarre) to some readers. Thus, such readers may ask the following question:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="aafc"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">Do qualia </span>themselves<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> really depend on such descriptions?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3995"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, perhaps qualia <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">are</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">as they are</em> regardless of our descriptions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="769c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, perhaps qualia are as they are regardless of (to use Kurthen’s terms again) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">history, language and our social community.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5e71"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What can now be said is that to believe that there is a quale (to use Kant’s terms) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Ding an sich</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong>is also to be a<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualia+realism&sca_esv=685533f0857abf28&sxsrf=ACQVn0-5Syl0bFao9rzvbF6I1xJyr1RFiw%3A1706422346010&ei=SvC1Zawd8dCFsg_TsJ3wCA&ved=0ahUKEwis6pTOtv-DAxVxaEEAHVNYB44Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=qualia+realism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDnF1YWxpYSByZWFsaXNtMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIyAxQgwZYhQlwAXgBkAEAmAFcoAGqAaoBATK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIEECMYJ-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualia+realism&sca_esv=685533f0857abf28&sxsrf=ACQVn0-5Syl0bFao9rzvbF6I1xJyr1RFiw%3A1706422346010&ei=SvC1Zawd8dCFsg_TsJ3wCA&ved=0ahUKEwis6pTOtv-DAxVxaEEAHVNYB44Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=qualia+realism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDnF1YWxpYSByZWFsaXNtMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIyAxQgwZYhQlwAXgBkAEAmAFcoAGqAaoBATK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIEECMYJ-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">qualia realist</a>.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="bcf4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="443" data-image-id="1*7cAEnQUIMtSbFvgFSAw52w.png" data-width="457" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*7cAEnQUIMtSbFvgFSAw52w.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The neuroscientist and philosopher Martin Kurthen.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d4e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kurthen himself tackles this distinction when he refers to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Rorty</a>’s position on “judgments about qualia”. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=a+short-sighted+reply+to+this+to+say+that+by+making+judgments+about+qualia,+we+only+reach+*descriptions*+of+qualia+as+opposed+to+qualia+*themselves*,+namely+their+like-to-be-ness.&pg=PA119&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=a+short-sighted+reply+to+this+to+say+that+by+making+judgments+about+qualia,+we+only+reach+*descriptions*+of+qualia+as+opposed+to+qualia+*themselves*,+namely+their+like-to-be-ness.&pg=PA119&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">then notes</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>what the qualiaphile may say in response:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d4ed"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I also think it would be a short-sighted reply to this to say that by making judgments about qualia, we only reach *descriptions* of qualia as opposed to qualia *themselves*, namely their like-to-be-ness.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c224"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kurthen also uses the term “given” to classify qualia when they’re (supposedly) taken as they are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in themselves</em>. However, he then argues that such givens may change even if they’re still taken to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">given</em>s. Kurthen <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22If+qualia+intuitions+change+with+social,+cultural+historical+and+evolutionary+contexts,+then+the+features+of+qualia+(as+seeming+%27*givens*%27)+themselves+might+be+overformed+by+these+outward+social,+etc.+modifications+of+how+the+subject+of+consciousness+*takes*+these+seemings.+Wouldn%27t+this+be+just+another+example+of+how+cognitive+preconditions+influence+the+further+cerebral+processing+and+thus+the+conscious+appearance+of+sensory+or+cerebral+activation+patterns%3F%22&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22If+qualia+intuitions+change+with+social,+cultural+historical+and+evolutionary+contexts,+then+the+features+of+qualia+%28as+seeming+%27*givens*%27%29+themselves+might+be+overformed+by+these+outward+social,+etc.+modifications+of+how+the+subject+of+consciousness+*takes*+these+seemings.+Wouldn%27t+this+be+just+another+example+of+how+cognitive+preconditions+influence+the+further+cerebral+processing+and+thus+the+conscious+appearance+of+sensory+or+cerebral+activation+patterns%3F%22&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4d5e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If qualia intuitions change with social, cultural historical and evolutionary contexts, then the features of qualia (as seeming ‘*givens*’) themselves might be overformed by these outward social, etc. modifications of how the subject of consciousness *takes* these seemings. Wouldn’t this be just another example of how cognitive preconditions influence the further cerebral processing and thus the conscious appearance of sensory or cerebral activation patterns?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc59"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As opposed to this sociological and historical take on qualia, we have an/the alternative, which Kurthen calls “cultural transcendentalism”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d994"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Cultural</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28philosophy%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">transcendentalism</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>isn’t<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>just a realism in the sense that qualia are taken to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">real</em> (or to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exist</em>). It’s also a realism in the sense that it’s argued that we get qualia <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">as they’re given — </em>even if we do later <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">describe</em> them!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4af0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So can we really make the (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-realist</em></a> move from stating that our descriptions of qualia</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9047"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“depend on a very special history and a very special constitution of a linguistic or, more general, social community”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d0d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">to also stating the following? -</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="3d56"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">Qualia</span><em class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> </em>themselves<em class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> (i.e., regardless of our descriptions) depend on </em>a very special history, and a very special constitution of a linguistic or, more general, social community.</span></span></blockquote><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3f38" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Qualia Within Total Cognitive Systems</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="be5b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="829" data-image-id="1*Pm-1jgSFgm75LSgQCtVv5g.png" data-width="712" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Pm-1jgSFgm75LSgQCtVv5g.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1e02"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Martin Kurthen then approaches this issue from another angle.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cf7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He argues that qualia (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what we say</em> about qualia) must surely be a result of what he calls our “total cognitive systems”. In other words, how we describe qualia isn’t just a historical and sociological issue.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0655"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How could anyone dispute that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5ae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, qualia don’t occur in literal isolation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ddb7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, qualia certainly aren’t described in isolation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="32ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=qualia+as+phenomena+occur+in+the+same+total+cognitive+system+that+is+also+subject+of+qualia+intuitions+and+judgments+about+qualia,+so+that+features+of+qualia+might+well+be+overformed+by+modifications+of+how+the+subject+of+consciousness+*takes*+these+seemings.&pg=PA120&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=qualia+as+phenomena+occur+in+the+same+total+cognitive+system+that+is+also+subject+of+qualia+intuitions+and+judgments+about+qualia,+so+that+features+of+qualia+might+well+be+overformed+by+modifications+of+how+the+subject+of+consciousness+*takes*+these+seemings.&pg=PA120&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">according to Kurthen</a>,</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a55a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“qualia as phenomena occur in the same total cognitive system that is also subject of qualia intuitions and judgments about qualia, so that features of qualia might well be overformed by modifications of how the subject of consciousness *takes* these seemings”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3ab1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, two things occur within the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">total cognitive systems</em> of human subjects:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="1845"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) Human subjects have “qualia intuitions”. <br />(2) Such subjects make </span>judgments<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> about their qualia.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ba59"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now as far as (1) is concerned: how seriously should we take people’s intuitions about qualia in the first place? And (2) was discussed earlier: can we truly separate people’s judgments about qualia from qualia in themselves?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3dc7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what are qualia<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> in themselves</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="924d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Tell me something about them.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3e51"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">if</em>) a qualiaphile answers that question, then he must surely make <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">judgments</em> about his and other people’s qualia. Thus, aren’t we back to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">judgments-about-qualia</em> again?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f041" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Qualia Narcissism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4428"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="514" data-image-id="1*sNrN0kBCZsDAx6CwsL3xpw.png" data-width="507" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*sNrN0kBCZsDAx6CwsL3xpw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In much broader terms, Martin Kurthen expresses his somewhat rhetorical — and even psychoanalytic — position on why qualia are discussed<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>so much (i.e., both inside and outside philosophical literature). He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/KUROTP" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/KUROTP" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0de6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“There certainly is such an aspect of narcissism and inflation of the subject in our incessant re-flection on subjectivity and the ‘genuinely subjective’ features of the mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5160"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, even if Kurthen’s claim in the above passage is true, there still may be serious epistemological and metaphysical problems with qualia — at least as far as <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">naturalism</a> is concerned. That said, Kurthen does (at least implicitly) note this (as we’ll now see).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a58"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kurthen then reins himself in and adopts a (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">metaphilosophical</em> approach. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+propensity+to+assign+a+sort+of+epistemological+or+ontological+significance+to+phenomenality+is,+in+my+opinion,+an+expression+of+our+modern+tendency+to+view+our+own+subjectivity+with+all+its+phenomenal+*presence*+and+*immediacy*+an+epistemologically+and/or+ontologically+exceptional+entity+or+constitution.&pg=PA120&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Conscious_Experience/wEjqp9kTXnUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+propensity+to+assign+a+sort+of+epistemological+or+ontological+significance+to+phenomenality+is,+in+my+opinion,+an+expression+of+our+modern+tendency+to+view+our+own+subjectivity+with+all+its+phenomenal+*presence*+and+*immediacy*+an+epistemologically+and/or+ontologically+exceptional+entity+or+constitution.&pg=PA120&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="25ba"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The propensity to assign a sort of epistemological or ontological significance to phenomenality is, in my opinion, an expression of our modern tendency to view our own subjectivity with all its phenomenal *presence* and *immediacy* an epistemologically and/or ontologically exceptional entity or constitution.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b81"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It can be said that there is indeed a “modern” obsession with subjectivity. Yet, as stated a moment ago, there may still be a problem for the naturalisation of qualia and/or subjectivity.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="05c0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So readers must now note that Kurthen doesn’t state the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="9a84"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">There has been a modern propensity to assign significance to phenomenality</span>.</span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="650d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, he states this:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="aa68"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The propensity to assign a sort of epistemological or ontological significance to phenomenality </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="53be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here the relevant and important words are “epistemological or ontological”. So everyone can happily accept that qualia are important <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">to us</em>. After all, if qualia exist as the qualiaphiles say they do, then we’re experiencing qualia almost all our waking hours. Indeed, some people even deem qualia to be at the heart of what makes human subjects <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person" rel="noopener" target="_blank">persons</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bd52"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, in this story at least, it’s no wonder that human persons <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">assign significance</em> to qualia…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="097a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, what about the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">epistemological</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">metaphysical</em> conclusions and theories of those philosophers and laypersons who’re also qualiaphiles?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="1979"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c774"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="2306"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> At first glance at least, what Patricia Churchland says about “qualia” must surely be true of many — even all — other philosophical terms too!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1071"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> In the above, all the quotes from Martin Kurthen come from his paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/KUROTP" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/KUROTP" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘On the Prospects of a Naturalistic Theory of Phenomenal Consciousness’</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1071"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-84644496137388827512024-02-05T07:44:00.000-08:002024-02-05T07:44:57.941-08:00Abusive and Tribal Responses to My Essay on Bernardo Kastrup<p> </p><section class="section section--body" name="129e"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="09c3"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*sft_3kiy0cPPrC5SOLY84w.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*sft_3kiy0cPPrC5SOLY84w.png" /></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="34f5"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">The word “tribal” is used in the title above partly because many self-described “spiritual” people <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em> have used the word “tribe” about the “communities” they belong to. </span><span style="font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+tribe&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn08EP4P_-jcBNa1uW5T0bd3svD5U2Q%3A1705996696676&source=hp&ei=mHGvZfzTJcKBhbIPz5CjCA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa9_qAdYNzIxgiwI2Il9CZ1Iny7IWAuH&ved=0ahUKEwj8_9v4hPODAxXCQEEAHU_ICAEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=spiritual+tribe&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig9zcGlyaXR1YWwgdHJpYmUyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSL0eUABY7BlwAHgAkAEAmAF7oAHNCqoBBDExLjS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICERAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGIMBwgIQEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxiDAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDwgINEAAYgAQYigUYQxixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+tribe&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn08EP4P_-jcBNa1uW5T0bd3svD5U2Q%3A1705996696676&source=hp&ei=mHGvZfzTJcKBhbIPz5CjCA&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa9_qAdYNzIxgiwI2Il9CZ1Iny7IWAuH&ved=0ahUKEwj8_9v4hPODAxXCQEEAHU_ICAEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=spiritual+tribe&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig9zcGlyaXR1YWwgdHJpYmUyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSL0eUABY7BlwAHgAkAEAmAF7oAHNCqoBBDExLjS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICERAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGIMBwgIQEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxiDAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDwgINEAAYgAQYigUYQxixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="29a8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">As for the word “abusive”. I doubt that such<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>spiritual people could ever admit that they were abusive to opponents, and to those they disagree with. In addition, I’m not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">offended</em> by the abuse. The abuse is simply something which I’ve noted. And I probably wouldn't have noted it at all if it hadn’t come from those people who see themselves as <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual</em>.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="12bf"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="cfc3"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Bernardo Kastrup’s Defenders</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Bernardo Kastrup’s Disciples</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) What Bernardo Kastrup’s Disciples Believe</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cd4f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The level of abuse, tribalism, and even viciousness I’ve received in response to my last essay on Bernardo Kastrup (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" target="_blank">‘Bernardo Kastrup: ‘The brain does not generate the mind.’’</a>) is telling. This is ironic really because in that essay I wrote the following words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="95ca"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The screenshot above is a reply to the YouTube interview on which this essay is based. Indeed, virtually all the replies under the video take on this form. In other words, there isn’t a single criticism of Bernardo Kastrup’s views to be found there. (There isn’t even a reply that’s mildly questioning.) This mass uniformity almost never occurs with other YouTube videos on philosophical issues.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4bb8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note </strong>at the end.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ed92"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The responses to my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" target="_blank">‘Bernardo Kastrup: ‘The brain does not generate the mind.’</a> also display such <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">uniformity</em>, as well as aggression and tribalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e16c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is odd because spiritual idealists and self-described “spiritual” people make a very strong effort to distinguish themselves from what they deem to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+people+and+%22conventional%22+or+%22traditional%22+religion&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0_G84APab-0hDYw1lsn5kfM2BmoDg%3A1706025411201&ei=w-GvZav4C8SshbIPmp-xuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjr5fL07_ODAxVEVkEAHZpPDPcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=spiritual+people+and+%22conventional%22+or+%22traditional%22+religion&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiPXNwaXJpdHVhbCBwZW9wbGUgYW5kICJjb252ZW50aW9uYWwiIG9yICJ0cmFkaXRpb25hbCIgcmVsaWdpb24yChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsANI2QdQAFgAcAF4AJABAJgBXKABXKoBATG4AQPIAQDiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+people+and+%22conventional%22+or+%22traditional%22+religion&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0_G84APab-0hDYw1lsn5kfM2BmoDg%3A1706025411201&ei=w-GvZav4C8SshbIPmp-xuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjr5fL07_ODAxVEVkEAHZpPDPcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=spiritual+people+and+%22conventional%22+or+%22traditional%22+religion&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiPXNwaXJpdHVhbCBwZW9wbGUgYW5kICJjb252ZW50aW9uYWwiIG9yICJ0cmFkaXRpb25hbCIgcmVsaWdpb24yChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsAMyChAAGEcY1gQYsANI2QdQAFgAcAF4AJABAJgBXKABXKoBATG4AQPIAQDiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“conventionally” (or “traditionally”) religious people</a>.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Spiritual but not religious’</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> Yet, if anything, these spiritual people often come across as fundamentalists…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7074"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps they should be called <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual fundamentalists</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6dbc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, these spiritual<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>people replicate so much of the verbal behaviour which they’re supposed to be against when it’s displayed by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">traditionally</em> or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">conventionally</em> religious people.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d55d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, there’s a dissonant clash between the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">self-image</em> of many of these spiritual people… and the reality of who they are, how they behave, and what they actually say.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a7f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, this conclusion is hardly original.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3635"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="903" data-image-id="1*l3AmlmkBqjT2u2PFZjK6Fw.png" data-width="793" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*l3AmlmkBqjT2u2PFZjK6Fw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f4b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Much has been written on, for example, “spiritual narcissism”, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a>’s various money-making endeavours (see link directly below), the huge egos of “spiritual leaders” and even their followers (which hide under an image of “selflessness”), spiritual aggression under the guise of peacefulness, spiritual tribalism under the guise of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spiritual+universalism%22&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0944g7RPatrFB4pJJR9Tb6yaaARpw%3A1706025607691&source=hp&ei=h-KvZYuFKI2kkdUPo5aS-A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa_wl24NAQIs4DWVrJ_t_o1O71Vy5q6B&ved=0ahUKEwjL5MnS8PODAxUNUqQEHSOLBP8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22spiritual+universalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihgic3Bpcml0dWFsIHVuaXZlcnNhbGlzbSIyBxAAGIAEGA0yBhAAGB4YDTIEEAAYHjIGEAAYHhgNMgYQABgIGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSKpYUABY6kNwAHgAkAEAmAF0oAGnCqoBBDE0LjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAhYQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDARhGGPkBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIKEAAYCBgHGB4YD8ICCBAAGAUYBxge&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spiritual+universalism%22&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0944g7RPatrFB4pJJR9Tb6yaaARpw%3A1706025607691&source=hp&ei=h-KvZYuFKI2kkdUPo5aS-A8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa_wl24NAQIs4DWVrJ_t_o1O71Vy5q6B&ved=0ahUKEwjL5MnS8PODAxUNUqQEHSOLBP8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22spiritual+universalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihgic3Bpcml0dWFsIHVuaXZlcnNhbGlzbSIyBxAAGIAEGA0yBhAAGB4YDTIEEAAYHjIGEAAYHhgNMgYQABgIGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSKpYUABY6kNwAHgAkAEAmAF0oAGnCqoBBDE0LjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAhYQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDARhGGPkBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIKEAAYCBgHGB4YD8ICCBAAGAUYBxge&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spiritual universalism”</a>, the exploitation and abuse of “spiritual” consumers and customers, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ecd"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://buddhistttherapist.medium.com/deepak-chopra-is-selling-350-meditation-glasses-deepak-chopra-is-a-fraud-644bf98c010a" href="https://buddhistttherapist.medium.com/deepak-chopra-is-selling-350-meditation-glasses-deepak-chopra-is-a-fraud-644bf98c010a" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Deepak Chopra Is Selling $350 Meditation Glasses. Deepak Chopra Is A Fraud’</a> on Medium.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="47fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="367" data-image-id="1*LHtSyIMs2wPDsCEcDRhYxA.png" data-width="695" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*LHtSyIMs2wPDsCEcDRhYxA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="5539"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spiritual+narcissism%22&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn0_6FlQTGzAPHMB9OcVL8llORpcRdQ%3A1705996474808&source=hp&ei=unCvZdKfL6CMhbIP3rGN2AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa9-yjgZJKzf0ZSRRBM-gBEVPCHQtY6D&ved=0ahUKEwjS5PeOhPODAxUgRkEAHd5YA0sQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22spiritual+narcissism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYic3Bpcml0dWFsIG5hcmNpc3Npc20iMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSLcIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAYoBoAGKAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spiritual+narcissism%22&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn0_6FlQTGzAPHMB9OcVL8llORpcRdQ%3A1705996474808&source=hp&ei=unCvZdKfL6CMhbIP3rGN2AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa9-yjgZJKzf0ZSRRBM-gBEVPCHQtY6D&ved=0ahUKEwjS5PeOhPODAxUgRkEAHd5YA0sQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22spiritual+narcissism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhYic3Bpcml0dWFsIG5hcmNpc3Npc20iMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSLcIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAYoBoAGKAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spiritual narcissism”</a> specifically.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6ccc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s worth quoting something from the many publications on this subject. Hopefully, this will help put Bernardo Kastrup and some of his disciples and defenders in context.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7e92"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following words are from a piece called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.choosingtherapy.com/spiritual-narcissists/#:~:text=Spiritual%20narcissism%20is%20based%20on,makes%20them%20holy%20and%20special." href="https://www.choosingtherapy.com/spiritual-narcissists/#:~:text=Spiritual%20narcissism%20is%20based%20on,makes%20them%20holy%20and%20special." rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Spiritual Narcissists’</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c5c3"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Spiritual narcissists boast about their spiritual accomplishments </i>[]<i> Just as narcissists believe that they are better than everyone else, spiritual narcissists believe that their spiritual wisdom and development is superior to others’. Spiritual narcissists boast about their spiritual or religious endeavors, including practices such as yoga, prayer, meditation, or knowledge of spiritual texts. Their presumption of superiority leads them to treat others with condescension. They manipulate others through twisting faith-based tenets, belief systems, or wield ‘forgiveness’ as a weapon with those who question their beliefs.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3f8e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> They may try to proselytize their friends and encourage them to join their practice or they may castigate others for their lack of self-awareness and enlightenment. Spiritual narcissists construct a barrier between those who ‘know the way’ and those who refuse to ‘follow the path.’ Just like any narcissist, they are consistently working to set themselves apart from everyone else and see themselves as existing on a level that no one else can easily attain.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8d85"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Spiritual narcissism is based on the ego driving the practice as a false means of achieving spiritual superiority.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="76a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Bernardo Kastrup’s case, he doesn’t only believe that he’s “spiritually superior”: he believes that he’s intellectually, politically and morally superior too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d1f5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And all this — and much else — has led me to conclude the much idealism is in fact religious in nature. Specifically, Bernardo Kastrup’s own <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=600662400&sxsrf=ACQVn09rbl-57rdRRyR3i4vOc2PJybGmOQ%3A1705994905980&source=hp&ei=mWqvZd36OcywhbIPkLeygA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa94qW-LK5yapPttxgtXQPFTDf9HI7q8&ved=0ahUKEwidq-6i_vKDAxVMWEEAHZCbDPAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc20yChAjGIAEGIoFGCcyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIoAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBeKABeKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=600662400&sxsrf=ACQVn09rbl-57rdRRyR3i4vOc2PJybGmOQ%3A1705994905980&source=hp&ei=mWqvZd36OcywhbIPkLeygA8&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa94qW-LK5yapPttxgtXQPFTDf9HI7q8&ved=0ahUKEwidq-6i_vKDAxVMWEEAHZCbDPAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc20yChAjGIAEGIoFGCcyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIoAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBeKABeKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealism</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>is a religion.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a75a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet this shouldn’t be a surprise because many idealists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em> have explicitly tied their own work to religion. (Such people just don’t usually tie their idealism/s to Christianity or to<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spirituality%22+and+%22Western+monotheism%22&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn08R40_ny3tdFYyNIWBcFkbEoX5o4g%3A1706025720989&ei=-OKvZZv8O5W3hbIP-9ytqAE&ved=0ahUKEwib2M6I8fODAxWVW0EAHXtuCxUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22spirituality%22+and+%22Western+monotheism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJyJzcGlyaXR1YWxpdHkiIGFuZCAiV2VzdGVybiBtb25vdGhlaXNtIjIIECEYoAEYwwRIrCVQywhYth9wAXgAkAEAmAFmoAHtAaoBAzIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spirituality%22+and+%22Western+monotheism%22&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn08R40_ny3tdFYyNIWBcFkbEoX5o4g%3A1706025720989&ei=-OKvZZv8O5W3hbIP-9ytqAE&ved=0ahUKEwib2M6I8fODAxWVW0EAHXtuCxUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22spirituality%22+and+%22Western+monotheism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJyJzcGlyaXR1YWxpdHkiIGFuZCAiV2VzdGVybiBtb25vdGhlaXNtIjIIECEYoAEYwwRIrCVQywhYth9wAXgAkAEAmAFmoAHtAaoBAzIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“Western monotheism”</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="55c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyway, here are some passages from the response section to my essay.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7c20" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup’s Defenders</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="958a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="427" data-image-id="1*NxhJ6rPV9VQaizU9oMYG5w.png" data-width="752" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*NxhJ6rPV9VQaizU9oMYG5w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a5d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Firstly, here’s someone called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@mutable1" href="https://medium.com/@mutable1" target="_blank">Cosmic Keith</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="72d2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This whole thing, the article and your responses, read like a mash of unclear complaints, undirected anger, confusion and rants. I found your ‘analysis’ shallow and lacking any real substance </i>[]</span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0ae4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The one position you did convey to me was ‘How dare he say something that I can’t wrap my head around and I am just totally buggered and lashing out to diminish a challenge to my underlying suppositions!’ ‘Blah blah blah, (ego protective mechanisms). He’s just wrong! See!?’</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3839"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> And the ranting continues. Sure you will issue the same kind of response to this comment.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="91de"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“My first thoughts while reading your article were: has the author bothered to dive more deeply into Kasteups positions or did he just watch one YouTube, feel offended and try to dutifully issue a takedown article to protect his now scrambled thought-stream?</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7c3c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“And my second thought was : where the hell is this going?</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="19c1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Down, down, to Nowhere… fast.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0dca"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It’s odd-funny to read articles (poorly formed opinion pieces) in defense of Physicalist/Materialist ideology that triy to be reasoned and rational but are just temper tantrums arise from lack of contemplation (?) …or understanding(?). And when others point out the incoherency, the autbors just lash out, and further the impression that it is indeed a tantrum…<br />In the defense of ‘scientific’ philosophical axioms that those authors don’t appear to have examined, or even be aware that their thinking is operating from. (wholesale ideologcal adoption)”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="656a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oddly enough, the passage above is a philosophy-free version of some of the subjects that Bernardo Kastrup himself has actually written on. Indeed, the defenders (or disciples)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>of Kastrup actually replicate Kastrup’s frequent use of abuse, as well as his disturbing <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Figurative_use" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Figurative_use" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Manichean</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>worldview. (This is a worldview which is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+materialism+and+materialists&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-906NzU6HSQWpOJWi0aaL6g7o4fQ%3A1706025888145&source=hp&ei=oOOvZYuLB_WLhbIPku-ToAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa_xsLCrwOqvR3EFIeBnBQnk9xCje83M&ved=0ahUKEwiL26fY8fODAxX1RUEAHZL3BHQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+materialism+and+materialists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwIG9uIG1hdGVyaWFsaXNtIGFuZCBtYXRlcmlhbGlzdHMyBxAhGAoYoAEyBxAhGAoYoAEyBxAhGAoYoAFIpF1QAFimWHAAeACQAQCYAY4BoAHtI6oBBTM1LjEzuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECMYgAQYigUYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIKEC4YgAQYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgsQLhiABBiKBRiRAsICBRAuGIAEwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgoQLhiABBgUGIcCwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICDRAuGIAEGBQYhwIYsQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgINEC4YgAQYxwEY0QMYCsICChAuGBQYhwIYgATCAhAQLhgKGMcBGLEDGNEDGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgcQABiABBgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBRAhGKABwgIEECEYFcICBRAhGJ8F&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+materialism+and+materialists&sca_esv=600777061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-906NzU6HSQWpOJWi0aaL6g7o4fQ%3A1706025888145&source=hp&ei=oOOvZYuLB_WLhbIPku-ToAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa_xsLCrwOqvR3EFIeBnBQnk9xCje83M&ved=0ahUKEwiL26fY8fODAxX1RUEAHZL3BHQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+materialism+and+materialists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwIG9uIG1hdGVyaWFsaXNtIGFuZCBtYXRlcmlhbGlzdHMyBxAhGAoYoAEyBxAhGAoYoAEyBxAhGAoYoAFIpF1QAFimWHAAeACQAQCYAY4BoAHtI6oBBTM1LjEzuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECMYgAQYigUYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIKEC4YgAQYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgsQLhiABBiKBRiRAsICBRAuGIAEwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgoQLhiABBgUGIcCwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICDRAuGIAEGBQYhwIYsQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgINEC4YgAQYxwEY0QMYCsICChAuGBQYhwIYgATCAhAQLhgKGMcBGLEDGNEDGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgcQABiABBgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBRAhGKABwgIEECEYFcICBRAhGJ8F&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">not only aimed at what Kastrup calls “materialists”</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c115"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Another fan of Kastrup (a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@bragiav" href="https://medium.com/@bragiav" target="_blank">Øystein Haltbakk</a>) offered his readers these words about a previous essay I’d written on Kastrup:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ba7a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The author provides a compelling example of the consequences that may arise when the unconscious facets of one’s personality diverge from the ego ideal. However, it’s possible that the author is unaware of this dynamic.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1486"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I mentioned the fact that the response from Cosmic Keith above tackles the same targets as Kastrup, but his prose style is very much unlike Kastrup’s own. However, this response from Øystein Haltbakk<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>is almost identical to both the style and the content of Kastrup’s own prose.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1006"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, let’s now take some examples from Kastrup himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d63"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s start with the most recent one I’ve come across, written by Kastrup in October 2023:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="edfa"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Tim]<i> Maudlin’s unbecoming, unacademic and rude behaviour made it clear that such was not the case. He came across to me as a nasty and crass street brawler, not a thinker. </i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[]</span><i> Nor do I find his ungrounded, tendentious, hand-waving and wishful technical statements worthy of in-depth discussion in debate format. I am sure he can continue to believe in his unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific fantasies without my help.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="91c5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Kastrup’s own ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">My unfortunate attempt at debating Tim Maudlin</a>’. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tim Maudlin</a> is a philosopher of science.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6363"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And now there’s the following examples:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2da2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Dim-witted biologist </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="37e4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[This is a reference to the biologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne</a>.]</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f67e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“ </i>[]<i> Sabine </i>[Hossenfelder]<i> has a big mouth and seems to be willing to almost flat-out lie in order to NOT look bad when confronted on a point she doesn’t have a good counter for. </i>[]<i> Her rhetorical assertiveness is, at least sometimes, a facade that hides a surprising lack of actual substance.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="31b2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“What makes the profound ignorance betrayed by the ‘review’ even worse is the conceitedness and pretentiousness that oozes through it.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b6e8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“How can a magazine with ambitions to ‘promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason’ publish this kind of juvenile garbage?”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8c39"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Since he </i>[Philip Goff] <i>was a cosmopsychist just a couple of years ago, then a constitutive panpsychist for the duration of one book, and now seemingly something else already again, who knows what his position will be by the time we debate?”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="72de"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> there is little of substance in </i>[Massimo]<i> Pigluicci’s essay to actually rebut or respond to. </i>[] <i>Unlike Pigliucci, I shall comment based on substance. Yet, I shall also comment vigorously and honestly, not through a smokescreen of passive aggression.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1659"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Many academic philosophers love to indulge in these tortuous conceptual games that achieve lift off from the firm ground of reality and end up in some other galaxy. This is no news. But I confess to feeling disappointed at Philip </i>[Goff]<i>, an academic philosopher I thought would see through this nonsense. I regret that so much energy and time was wasted, during the debate </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f5fa"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I am not doing this just to gratuitously and repeatedly stick my finger in the wound; I’m not trying to do character assassination. But during the debate </i>[Sabine]<i> Hossenfelder attempted (and probably succeeded, in the eyes of many viewers) to make me look like an ignorant fool by flat-out misrepresenting her own output. I ought to defend myself against that overt suggestion, which I consider to have been rhetorical and dishonest, violating all basic debate ethics.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4b09"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Again, </i>[Sam]<i> Harris seems to be, at best, confused and ignorant of the facts; or, at worse, wilfully biased in his appraisal of the available data. </i>[]<i> The irony would be sweet if it weren’t concerning as far as what it seems to say about Sam Harris.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c420"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[S]<i>ome seem to react to what I have accomplished with covetousness — as opposed to the objectivity that academics are expected to embody — is both a serious problem and a missed opportunity for desperately-needed change. </i>[] <i>Many academic philosophers have abandoned reality and now spend their time playing entirely abstract conceptual games of no relevance to you and me. But they still insist that what they do is ‘real’ philosophy. </i>[]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="02ef"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“And </i>[Daniel]<i> Dennett isn’t alone. Others, like psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, suggest the same thing </i>[]<i> Despite being a surreal display of in-your-face incoherence, the fact that the video is cladded with the gentle and trust-inspiring demeanor of an affable old man </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7736"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“There is a significant way in which fundamentalist atheists may be unconsciously attributing to others their own cognitive limitations. In psychological terms, this is called a projection. By passing judgment onto their own projections according to the rules of their own private games, they reveal parts of their psychological makeup but assert nothing of relevance about the nature of reality.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7e8f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hat kind of psychological disposition makes one feel entitled to publicly criticize something one has admittedly not understood?”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cac3"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This is one of those embarrassing passages in which Jerry Berry </i>[Jerry Coyne]<i> unwittingly makes painfully clear to the whole world the depths of his philosophical ignorance.”</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0b28"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Keith]<i> Frankish has accomplished precisely nothing in his long essay; at least nothing more than tortuous obfuscation and hand-waving.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d822"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oddly enough, one of Kastrup’s defenders (a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@qwertius?source=responses-----bee88bc404a----0----------------------------" href="https://medium.com/@qwertius?source=responses-----bee88bc404a----0----------------------------" rel="noopener follow" target="_blank">Greg Sotiropoulos</a>) defended Kastrup with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-idealist-cult-leader-who-endlessly-abuses-others-bee88bc404a" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-idealist-cult-leader-who-endlessly-abuses-others-bee88bc404a" target="_blank">these words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="561a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Now show us where exactly the persons, rather than their ideas, were attacked?<br />1. ‘babble incoherently’: not AH </i>[ad hominem]<i>; he’s talking about the incoherence of the babble<br />2. all the ‘emperor has no clothes’ quotes — how exactly are the people attacked? Can you explain what exactly constitutes an AH here?<br />3. ‘heir </i>[Graziano and Frankish]<i> nonsense is toxic, corrosive and pernicious’: again, it’s their nonsense that is judged/attacked, not the people.</i>[]</span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0747"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I scrolled down to the end of the article thinking that there might be something there, but still no luck. The closest I could find is ‘unwittingly makes painfully clear to the whole world the depths of his philosophical ignorance’<br />but that’s still not an AH.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b628"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Greg Sotiropoulos’s point is that Kastrup didn’t actually use any <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" rel="noopener" target="_blank">ad hominems</a>. Technically, perhaps Sotiropoulos is right. However, what would he call Kastrup’s rather obvious abuse of other people? (I suspect Sotiropoulos would have a problem with my word “abuse” too.) And whatever Sotiropoulos calls these words and phrases, he certainly defends what Kastrup says.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae83"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, here are some much-milder responses to my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-brain-does-not-generate-the-mind-308c9347340e" target="_blank">‘Bernardo Kastrup: ‘The brain does not generate the mind.’</a>’ essay.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae6a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+read+the+whole+article+and+still+don%27t+know+what+your+point%C2%A0is.%22&sca_esv=600979061&sxsrf=ACQVn09rClv45swGxX0abCfoFOur9vgBbg%3A1706074187801&source=hp&ei=S6CwZYThLrOdhbIP06ausAI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbCuWzX7Fl3ZAv5OPRDsy_-6O6pqQKMd&ved=0ahUKEwjEsrDPpfWDAxWzTkEAHVOTCyYQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22I+read+the+whole+article+and+still+don%27t+know+what+your+point%C2%A0is.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQiSSByZWFkIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBhcnRpY2xlIGFuZCBzdGlsbCBkb24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgeW91ciBwb2ludMKgaXMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+read+the+whole+article+and+still+don%27t+know+what+your+point%C2%A0is.%22&sca_esv=600979061&sxsrf=ACQVn09rClv45swGxX0abCfoFOur9vgBbg%3A1706074187801&source=hp&ei=S6CwZYThLrOdhbIP06ausAI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbCuWzX7Fl3ZAv5OPRDsy_-6O6pqQKMd&ved=0ahUKEwjEsrDPpfWDAxWzTkEAHVOTCyYQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22I+read+the+whole+article+and+still+don%27t+know+what+your+point%C2%A0is.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQiSSByZWFkIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBhcnRpY2xlIGFuZCBzdGlsbCBkb24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgeW91ciBwb2ludMKgaXMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The following</a> is from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://prudencelouise.medium.com/" href="https://prudencelouise.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Prudence Louise</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9bfc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I read the whole article and still don’t know what your point is.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8af0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In most cases, when people use the phrase, “I don’t know what your point is” (as well as variations on it), they really mean this:<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> I don’t like your point</em>. (In other words, the phrase “What is your point?” is rhetorical.) This was especially true of Prudence<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Louise since she then went straight ahead and told me — along with other readers — what she took my point to be. And then she gave many reasons as to why she didn’t like my supposed <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">singular point</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="008f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As it is, Prudence<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Louise never quoted — or even paraphrased — a single syllable from my actual essay. She simply told readers why she doesn’t like materialists, and why she doesn’t agree with materialism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="16e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+must+agree+with+Prudence+below.+There+is+a+lot+of+rambling.%22&sca_esv=600979061&sxsrf=ACQVn0841t47KK88qHOXTaZYHXhYcK20DA%3A1706074285826&source=hp&ei=raCwZdWmMPCThbIPnZ2g6A4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbCuvWtkznBtZBw5qklF4yYioBSrf8Hj&ved=0ahUKEwiVsY_-pfWDAxXwSUEAHZ0OCO0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22I+must+agree+with+Prudence+below.+There+is+a+lot+of+rambling.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ij8iSSBtdXN0IGFncmVlIHdpdGggUHJ1ZGVuY2UgYmVsb3cuIFRoZXJlIGlzIGEgbG90IG9mIHJhbWJsaW5nLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+must+agree+with+Prudence+below.+There+is+a+lot+of+rambling.%22&sca_esv=600979061&sxsrf=ACQVn0841t47KK88qHOXTaZYHXhYcK20DA%3A1706074285826&source=hp&ei=raCwZdWmMPCThbIPnZ2g6A4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZbCuvWtkznBtZBw5qklF4yYioBSrf8Hj&ved=0ahUKEwiVsY_-pfWDAxXwSUEAHZ0OCO0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22I+must+agree+with+Prudence+below.+There+is+a+lot+of+rambling.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ij8iSSBtdXN0IGFncmVlIHdpdGggUHJ1ZGVuY2UgYmVsb3cuIFRoZXJlIGlzIGEgbG90IG9mIHJhbWJsaW5nLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here’s some more</a> (tribal) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">uniformity</em> from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://mdrmd2.medium.com/" href="https://mdrmd2.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Mark D Rego</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1f1b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I must agree with Prudence below. There is a lot of rambling.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="462d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mark D Rego then admittedly moved away from stating that I <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">ramble</em>, to stating that the “worlds” of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">materialist </em>scientists are “about to crumble”. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%5B%5D+Deep+down+I+hope+Kastrup+is+right+about+most+things.+%5B%5D+The+youngish+scientists+are+soooo+sure+it%27s+not+this+way.+We+have+it+all+almost+figured+out+they+believe.+They+do+not+know+that+their+worlds+are+about+to+crumble.+The+biological+consensus+is+falling+apart.+We+are+not+wet+robots+but+something+else+entirely.+%5B%5D%22&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn0-f9TTq0EXLgkhTYw4HV2-iU5ucKw%3A1705995472495&source=hp&ei=0GyvZcG9HMmHhbIP38Cy4Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa964DZUQNYZG2LwsndpisZ7EzYLze4T&ved=0ahUKEwjB5f-wgPODAxXJQ0EAHV-gDHwQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22%5B%5D+Deep+down+I+hope+Kastrup+is+right+about+most+things.+%5B%5D+The+youngish+scientists+are+soooo+sure+it%27s+not+this+way.+We+have+it+all+almost+figured+out+they+believe.+They+do+not+know+that+their+worlds+are+about+to+crumble.+The+biological+consensus+is+falling+apart.+We+are+not+wet+robots+but+something+else+entirely.+%5B%5D%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsACIltdIERlZXAgZG93biBJIGhvcGUgS2FzdHJ1cCBpcyByaWdodCBhYm91dCBtb3N0IHRoaW5ncy4gW10gVGhlIHlvdW5naXNoIHNjaWVudGlzdHMgYXJlIHNvb29vIHN1cmUgaXQncyBub3QgdGhpcyB3YXkuIFdlIGhhdmUgaXQgYWxsIGFsbW9zdCBmaWd1cmVkIG91dCB0aGV5IGJlbGlldmUuIFRoZXkgZG8gbm90IGtub3cgdGhhdCB0aGVpciB3b3JsZHMgYXJlIGFib3V0IHRvIGNydW1ibGUuIFRoZSBiaW9sb2dpY2FsIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBpcyBmYWxsaW5nIGFwYXJ0LiBXZSBhcmUgbm90IHdldCByb2JvdHMgYnV0IHNvbWV0aGluZyBlbHNlIGVudGlyZWx5LiBbXSJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%5B%5D+Deep+down+I+hope+Kastrup+is+right+about+most+things.+%5B%5D+The+youngish+scientists+are+soooo+sure+it%27s+not+this+way.+We+have+it+all+almost+figured+out+they+believe.+They+do+not+know+that+their+worlds+are+about+to+crumble.+The+biological+consensus+is+falling+apart.+We+are+not+wet+robots+but+something+else+entirely.+%5B%5D%22&sca_esv=600673538&sxsrf=ACQVn0-f9TTq0EXLgkhTYw4HV2-iU5ucKw%3A1705995472495&source=hp&ei=0GyvZcG9HMmHhbIP38Cy4Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZa964DZUQNYZG2LwsndpisZ7EzYLze4T&ved=0ahUKEwjB5f-wgPODAxXJQ0EAHV-gDHwQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22%5B%5D+Deep+down+I+hope+Kastrup+is+right+about+most+things.+%5B%5D+The+youngish+scientists+are+soooo+sure+it%27s+not+this+way.+We+have+it+all+almost+figured+out+they+believe.+They+do+not+know+that+their+worlds+are+about+to+crumble.+The+biological+consensus+is+falling+apart.+We+are+not+wet+robots+but+something+else+entirely.+%5B%5D%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsACIltdIERlZXAgZG93biBJIGhvcGUgS2FzdHJ1cCBpcyByaWdodCBhYm91dCBtb3N0IHRoaW5ncy4gW10gVGhlIHlvdW5naXNoIHNjaWVudGlzdHMgYXJlIHNvb29vIHN1cmUgaXQncyBub3QgdGhpcyB3YXkuIFdlIGhhdmUgaXQgYWxsIGFsbW9zdCBmaWd1cmVkIG91dCB0aGV5IGJlbGlldmUuIFRoZXkgZG8gbm90IGtub3cgdGhhdCB0aGVpciB3b3JsZHMgYXJlIGFib3V0IHRvIGNydW1ibGUuIFRoZSBiaW9sb2dpY2FsIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBpcyBmYWxsaW5nIGFwYXJ0LiBXZSBhcmUgbm90IHdldCByb2JvdHMgYnV0IHNvbWV0aGluZyBlbHNlIGVudGlyZWx5LiBbXSJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">In full</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="86cb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[] <i>Deep down I hope Kastrup is right about most things. </i>[]<i> The youngish scientists are soooo sure it’s not this way. We have it all almost figured out they believe. They do not know that their worlds are about to crumble. The biological consensus is falling apart. We are not wet robots but something else entirely. </i>[]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d046"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now that passage <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">really does</em> sound like religious prophesy.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2be8" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup’s Disciples</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3e5f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="842" data-image-id="1*aWTgWnMW8hc3VHL8sz7pRA.png" data-width="1133" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*aWTgWnMW8hc3VHL8sz7pRA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f3e6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, here are some replies under the video (called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoJWqCH4Xrw&t=231s" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoJWqCH4Xrw&t=231s" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">‘‘Your Consciousness is Not in Your Head.’ | Interview with BERNARDO KASTRUP, PhD’</a>) I actually wrote my essay on:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1825"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I feel something akin to spiritual bliss whenever I listen to the words of Bernardo Kastrup.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7c2e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Patrick Thompson</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="10f2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bernardo is orders of magnitude beyond brilliant.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f4d6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Kim M. Clark, OD</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4485"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Absolutely marvellous expose of this gentleman. It lifts a veil from our eyes. Very coherent.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2f32"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— kosmotrekker</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="02ba"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It’s a feeling of quite some ecstasy when someone of academic renown says what you, as a mere spectator, also intuit with great depth. This guy seems to ‘know’ what I merely sense. </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae22"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Fathom</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6fd6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“What a brilliant mind. </i>[]<i> Thank you for all your work Bernardo.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e4db"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— William Ralph</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0d35"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Wow. I love this guy. I wonder does he realize this view resolves the paradox of free will vs determinism.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e6f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Fathom</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6bcb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bernado!! You nail it every time!”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="42b9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Paul Garrett</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3e01"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“One day, I would like to meet this brilliant man. He knows many many things.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="803c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Ginevra J De Luca</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d47a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bernardo is a. Intellect personified.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="05ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Sharpo</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1494"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I live in a place called Kastrup….this is weird…”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9554"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Bugzy Hardrada</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4904"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bernardo is the Galileo of Consciousness in my humble and insignificant opinion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d31e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Michael Dillon</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="10d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Thank you for all you work Bernardo, you clearly are one of the best thinkers of our time.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8bbe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Kim Steinhaug</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="cc36" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">What Kastrup’s Disciples Believe</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d31f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="558" data-image-id="1*fs5KOJVi__23-A70EqlEGQ.png" data-width="559" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*fs5KOJVi__23-A70EqlEGQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="81f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following are some replies (under the same YouTube video) which don’t actually mention Kastrup himself, but they’re informative anyway:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e565"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The status quo have deliberately repressed what Buddhist teachings have know for over 2500 years that the universe is itself a conscious field of energy we experience the universe through our self awareness.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3a72"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Pi 3 times 14 is 42</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1c0e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“well if you implicate his philoshopy ot fullest degree, actualy he is saying that we are center of universe. That would be shown if you ask him what happen after consciousness is dissociated from body. On the other hand, fact that we are eternal individual localized consciousness has far rich implication.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="65fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— AntimaterialWorld</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a472"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I would love to believe consciousness is always there and our brains tap into the infinite consciousness and when our lives end we use this consciousness again maybe in another dimension or as a reincarnate? But it sounds like no one really dies.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5a53"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Benedetto Salerno</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="034c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I am the holy ghost…. science meets spirit… one begets the other, about time :)”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5107"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— stevefrompolaca</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cf82"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Sure psychedelics are incredible tools. I recommand 1P-LSD which is still legal in some countries like Netherland (1/2 a blotter is enought to shake your mental ground). I still listening again and again BK to understand in depth all his odd ideas. Peace & love Thanx for the video.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d3b2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— 1sanremy</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3d36"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Can this be the reason why everyone that has died never gets to come back to the Earths state of consciousness but are using this infinite consciousness in another realm still living on.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b9b8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Benedetto Salerno</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a7f4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In other words, Vedanta (Hinduism).”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3c9e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— J S</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="14c8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In translation — we are immortal spiritual beings who wear this meat suit for some time.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d282"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Petar Lukovic</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="02c0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Your Matrix is in Your Head. It makes everything look separate. In reality, the universe is one entity.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="108c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— apparent being</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3f95"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“We are all mental manifestations in the mind of The All.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a5a0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">— Hermes.T</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="4f1c"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b6b9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Note:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="90c0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> I must now amend that passage. When I went back to this reply section under the video interview with Bernardo Kastrup, I did find a 2 or 3 critical replies — among dozens of obsequious ones.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="89fc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Perhaps the main reason why Kastrup does so many interviews (most of which can be found on YouTube) is in order to build up his own cult following. He has succeeded in that task, as the quoted replies show.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="89fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="89fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-31056823106274194012024-02-02T22:07:00.000-08:002024-02-02T22:07:04.439-08:00Bernardo Kastrup: “The brain does not generate the mind.”<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*-tra5vrRuq858d_puulVVg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*-tra5vrRuq858d_puulVVg.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="cbc1"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="2fcf"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[All of Bernardo Kastrup’s words in the following essay come from a YouTube video called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoJWqCH4Xrw&t=231s" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoJWqCH4Xrw&t=231s" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘‘Your Consciousness is Not in Your Head.’ | Interview with BERNARDO KASTRUP, PhD’</a>. The interviewer is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://dokweb.net/database/persons/biography/eb7f5136-ac6c-495e-b0f2-0aea294f9eec/peter-sarosi" href="https://dokweb.net/database/persons/biography/eb7f5136-ac6c-495e-b0f2-0aea294f9eec/peter-sarosi" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Péter Sárosi</a>. The interview itself was recorded at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research (ICPR) 2022, in Haarlem, the Netherlands.]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="fcc5"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="d96c" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h4-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Part One</span></strong></h4><p class="graf graf--p" name="59b9"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction: Bernardo Kastrup on Science</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) The Mind Generates the Brain</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Correlation Doesn’t Imply Causation</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Philip Goff on the Non-Identity of Pain Y With Brain State X</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Kastrup’s Reasons to Believe the Mind Generates the Brain</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="0a6b" style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--h4-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Part Two</span></strong></h4><p class="graf graf--p" name="ad3b"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(vi) Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(viii) Universal Consciousness and the Field of Subjectivity</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Kastrup, Hoffman and Chopra on Religion</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="be89" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Introduction: Bernardo Kastrup and Science</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="7fd1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="433" data-image-id="1*TmWWMnPTXkEgWMOCa5jD-g.png" data-width="771" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*TmWWMnPTXkEgWMOCa5jD-g.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="70cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=599065716&sxsrf=ACQVn0_2upy8dPTN4XH4Y0T1XsJWsASI-Q%3A1705480488241&source=hp&ei=KJGnZYD3DMHMhbIP8fKI2Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaefOHYLtrFEhXrMykeDWx1se9evKmB3&ved=0ahUKEwiAq6_1geSDAxVBZkEAHXE5AssQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMgQQIxgnMgoQIxiABBiKBRgnMgQQIxgnMhAQABiABBiKBRhDGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjILEAAYgAQYigUYkQIyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIFEAAYgAQyChAAGIAEGIoFGENIiwhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZqABZqoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=599065716&sxsrf=ACQVn0_2upy8dPTN4XH4Y0T1XsJWsASI-Q%3A1705480488241&source=hp&ei=KJGnZYD3DMHMhbIP8fKI2Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaefOHYLtrFEhXrMykeDWx1se9evKmB3&ved=0ahUKEwiAq6_1geSDAxVBZkEAHXE5AssQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMgQQIxgnMgoQIxiABBiKBRgnMgQQIxgnMhAQABiABBiKBRhDGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjILEAAYgAQYigUYkQIyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIFEAAYgAQyChAAGIAEGIoFGENIiwhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZqABZqoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a> is keen to tell us that he’s not actually against neuroscience. It’s just that he believes that neuroscience isn’t enough.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb7e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the following passage:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8447"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I think there is nothing wrong with interpreting brain imaging from a scientific perspective. That’s the primary way to study the mind because our only access to someone else’s mind is brain imaging, fMRI</i><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"> []<i> EEG</i></span> [and]<i> PET </i>[scans]<i> and so on. So I have nothing against that.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd79"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To Kastrup, the “scientific perspective” is fine. However, he doesn’t believe that it’s enough. Kastrup believes that we also need a philosophical perspective. That is, we need an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealist</em> perspective. Indeed, we need <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+idealism&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn08O5vCWQHoJfyzaV100z1RphGpP3g%3A1705459231453&source=hp&ei=Hz6nZYfaGY2ohbIP44e58AM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadML5SkcvieQKXIhIA3Fg3VC2z2RC6h&ved=0ahUKEwjH5avdsuODAxUNVEEAHeNDDj4Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhtCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwJ3MgaWRlYWxpc20yBxAAGIAEGA1I9DZQAFjuMXAAeACQAQCYAbkDoAHxF6oBCjIzLjEuMC4yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQLhiABMICFhAuGIAEGAoYsQMYgwEYyQMYxwEY0QPCAgUQABiABMICDRAAGIAEGAoYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBiKBRiSA8ICBhAAGBYYHsICBxAjGLACGCfCAhMQABiABBgNGLEDGIMBGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+idealism&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn08O5vCWQHoJfyzaV100z1RphGpP3g%3A1705459231453&source=hp&ei=Hz6nZYfaGY2ohbIP44e58AM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadML5SkcvieQKXIhIA3Fg3VC2z2RC6h&ved=0ahUKEwjH5avdsuODAxUNVEEAHeNDDj4Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhtCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwJ3MgaWRlYWxpc20yBxAAGIAEGA1I9DZQAFjuMXAAeACQAQCYAbkDoAHxF6oBCjIzLjEuMC4yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQLhiABMICFhAuGIAEGAoYsQMYgwEYyQMYxwEY0QPCAgUQABiABMICDRAAGIAEGAoYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBiKBRiSA8ICBhAAGBYYHsICBxAjGLACGCfCAhMQABiABBgNGLEDGIMBGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kastrup’s very own idealism</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5a82"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup believes that he’s offering a philosophical take on the neuroscience. In technical terms, the brain is the (to use Kastrup’s own words) “image” or “representation” of the mind.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="42e0" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Mind Generates the Brain</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="928d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="489" data-image-id="1*CA3icnqJjwUtOYcpoCuNAQ.png" data-width="848" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*CA3icnqJjwUtOYcpoCuNAQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="3407"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already stated, Kastrup wouldn’t deny that he’s doing philosophy (i.e., not science) here. However, he holds the position that (what he calls) “materialist scientists” don’t realise that they’re doing philosophy when they claim that (to use Kastrup’s own words) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22brain+generates+the+mind%22&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn09lLLT0sMfNqEqrx6GP2Vpi6cjPwg%3A1705421538596&ei=4qqmZZ-CJP-qhbIPrvSk8Ac&ved=0ahUKEwif-_-npuKDAxV_VUEAHS46CX4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22brain+generates+the+mind%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLUJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgLSAiYnJhaW4gZ2VuZXJhdGVzIHRoZSBtaW5kIjIIEAAYgAQYogRIsypQ0QZYwxVwAXgAkAEAmAGZAaABvgmqAQMyLji4AQPIAQD4AQHCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22brain+generates+the+mind%22&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn09lLLT0sMfNqEqrx6GP2Vpi6cjPwg%3A1705421538596&ei=4qqmZZ-CJP-qhbIPrvSk8Ac&ved=0ahUKEwif-_-npuKDAxV_VUEAHS46CX4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22brain+generates+the+mind%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLUJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgLSAiYnJhaW4gZ2VuZXJhdGVzIHRoZSBtaW5kIjIIEAAYgAQYogRIsypQ0QZYwxVwAXgAkAEAmAGZAaABvgmqAQMyLji4AQPIAQD4AQHCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the brain [] generates the mind”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="da1e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s true that a fair few scientists (including writers of popular science) don’t seem to realise the philosophical aspects of the theories they endorse and the statements they make. However, believing that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the brain generates the mind</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>doesn’t seem to be a philosophical at all.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9492"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, if scientists believing that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the brain generates the mind</em> is a philosophical position, then it is so only in the sense that virtually all claims can be deemed to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> in some sense or other. So the problem here is the following (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=If+everything+is+x%2C+then+nothing+is+x.&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn082gbkVD8H45ApF0Cn9UTPgiojjNA%3A1705421700591&source=hp&ei=hKumZe73IcmehbIPxLqr-Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa5lNkGx60nXPYfHj_iLRsEC9DvwROo&ved=0ahUKEwjuyZ31puKDAxVJT0EAHUTdCn8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=If+everything+is+x%2C+then+nothing+is+x.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZJZiBldmVyeXRoaW5nIGlzIHgsIHRoZW4gbm90aGluZyBpcyB4LjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI3RFQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBbKABbKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=If+everything+is+x%2C+then+nothing+is+x.&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn082gbkVD8H45ApF0Cn9UTPgiojjNA%3A1705421700591&source=hp&ei=hKumZe73IcmehbIPxLqr-Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa5lNkGx60nXPYfHj_iLRsEC9DvwROo&ved=0ahUKEwjuyZ31puKDAxVJT0EAHUTdCn8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=If+everything+is+x%2C+then+nothing+is+x.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZJZiBldmVyeXRoaW5nIGlzIHgsIHRoZW4gbm90aGluZyBpcyB4LjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI3RFQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBbKABbKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">as it’s often put</a>):</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="7d48"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">If everything is </span><i>x</i><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">, then nothing is </span><i>x</i>.</span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a008"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">You may as well say that when someone claims that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">legs generate walking </em>(or<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>that a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">punch in the nose</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">generates bleeding), </em>then<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>that<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>is (as Kastrup puts it) “doing philosophy”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d93"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup then restates the famous <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correlation-doesn’t-imply-causation</em> idea (if in his own way).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ee0d" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Correlation Doesn't Imply Causation</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="bbd3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="649" data-image-id="1*alDD9nLbPvfTtn6sLL8kTQ.png" data-width="843" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*alDD9nLbPvfTtn6sLL8kTQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="02ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the interview on YouTube, Kastrup tells us the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d4fb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“There is a correlation between the two </i>[i.e., between brain and mind]<i>. We can learn a lot about one from the other. In other words, we can learn a lot about the mind from brain imaging. But when we interpret that correlation as implying a certain causation (like the brain causes the mind), that’s when we will artificially narrow our horizons. And I think that is unjustified. That’s a philosophical step, and it’s a bad one. There are plenty of reasons to think that the brain does not generate the mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a9de"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Wikipedia’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Correlation does not imply causation’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a379"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is Kastrup reiterating his view that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the brain doesn’t cause the mind</em>. However, Kastrup makes it seem as if scientists simply note certain correlations, and then quickly and wildly jump to believing that the brain causes the mind…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8ad1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, there may be some kind of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correlation </em>between a cock crowing in Somerset and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>John Smith eating his lunch in Dorset. However, no scientist I know would believe that the cock crowing <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">caused</em> John to eat his lunch. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[This example is based on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume" rel="noopener" target="_blank">David Hume</a>’s own examples in which he too tackles <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Hume+on+causation+and+correlation+-+the+sun+rising+tomorrow&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn0_yTvoFQSNIg5MaCn5nSm7ARRS2jg%3A1705478079756&ei=v4enZZ3mLaGChbIPh7SW6As&ved=0ahUKEwjdwfb4-OODAxUhQUEAHQeaBb0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Hume+on+causation+and+correlation+-+the+sun+rising+tomorrow&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQURhdmlkIEh1bWUgb24gY2F1c2F0aW9uIGFuZCBjb3JyZWxhdGlvbiAtIHRoZSBzdW4gcmlzaW5nIHRvbW9ycm93SNhCUOcIWPQ9cAF4AZABAJgBggGgAfQRqgEEMjMuM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBRAhGKABwgIHECEYChigAcICBRAhGJ8FwgIEECEYFcICBBAhGAriAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Hume+on+causation+and+correlation+-+the+sun+rising+tomorrow&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn0_yTvoFQSNIg5MaCn5nSm7ARRS2jg%3A1705478079756&ei=v4enZZ3mLaGChbIPh7SW6As&ved=0ahUKEwjdwfb4-OODAxUhQUEAHQeaBb0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Hume+on+causation+and+correlation+-+the+sun+rising+tomorrow&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQURhdmlkIEh1bWUgb24gY2F1c2F0aW9uIGFuZCBjb3JyZWxhdGlvbiAtIHRoZSBzdW4gcmlzaW5nIHRvbW9ycm93SNhCUOcIWPQ9cAF4AZABAJgBggGgAfQRqgEEMjMuM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBRAhGKABwgIHECEYChigAcICBRAhGJ8FwgIEECEYFcICBBAhGAriAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">causation and correlation</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="022d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The same is true of the brain and mind.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f726"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not only that there are correlations. Full stop!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7b51"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those correlations are systematic, and lots and lots is known about them. Thus, there are a whole host of scientific, logical and philosophical reasons to believe that it’s not <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">just a question of correlations</em>. Indeed, it’s about a hell of a lot more.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a2fb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Kastrup himself doesn’t mention any of this extra scientific, logical and philosophical detail. Again, he makes it seem as if all neuroscientists fall for the silly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correlation-must-imply-causation</em> mistake — literally without any thought.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ca1b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So discussing the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a>’s position on identity will be helpful here.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9e20" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Philip Goff on the Non-Identity of Pain Y With Brain State X</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e3b0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="594" data-image-id="1*X0qY8qbulqGAUYoORFeQWA.png" data-width="1060" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*X0qY8qbulqGAUYoORFeQWA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6061"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Philip Goff’s take on the position of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">identity theorists</a>, there’s a far-too-quick move from the fact that pain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Y is</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em></strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22If+we+have+sufficient+empirical+evidence+that+pain+is+identical+with+brain+state+X%2C+which+brute+identity+theorists+claim+we+would+have+if+pain+were+found+to+be+systematically+correlated+with+brain+state+X%2C+then+we+can+simply+assert+the+identity+and+the+case+is+closed.+It+is+a+philosophical+confusion%2C+according+to+the+brute+identity+theory%2C+to+suppose+that+anything+more+is+required.%22&pg=PT86&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22If+we+have+sufficient+empirical+evidence+that+pain+is+identical+with+brain+state+X%2C+which+brute+identity+theorists+claim+we+would+have+if+pain+were+found+to+be+systematically+correlated+with+brain+state+X%2C+then+we+can+simply+assert+the+identity+and+the+case+is+closed.+It+is+a+philosophical+confusion%2C+according+to+the+brute+identity+theory%2C+to+suppose+that+anything+more+is+required.%22&pg=PT86&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">“</em>systematically correlated with brain state <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">X</em>”</a>,<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>to the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dr.+ivor+cutler+at+the+california+institute+of+technology&pg=PT13&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dr.+ivor+cutler+at+the+california+institute+of+technology&pg=PT13&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">conclusion that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7ad4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“we can </i>[therefore]<i> simply assert the identity and the case is closed”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5f4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is Kastrup himself basically making the same kind of point as Goff?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="efeb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In this case, however, Goff isn’t discussing whether “the brain generates the mind” (or vice versa): he’s discussing whether a (particular) brain state can ever be identical to a (particular) mental state. In addition, Goff’s position is far less extreme (or simply less radical) than Kastrup’s. That is, he’s not questioning that the brain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">somehow</em> (to use Kastrup’s word) “generates” pain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Y</em>. He’s asking his readers whether or not pain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Y</em> can be (or actually is) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">identical</em> to brain state <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">X</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c83"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, it’s not literally <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all about correlation</em>s.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d2e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not only that brain state <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">X</em> and pain state <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Y</em> are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correlated</em> which <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">automatically</em> leads to positing an identity<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>(or, in Kastrup’s case, positing a causal relation) between them. It’s that these<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">systematic correlations</em> give the philosopher or neuroscientist very strong reasons to believe that there is — in fact — an identity (or a causal relation).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2db2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following passage is how the American experimental psychologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Boring" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Boring" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Edwin Boring</a> (as quoted by U.T. Place<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">) </em><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://utplace.uk/pdf/1990a%20E.G.%20Boring%20and%20the%20Mind-Brain%20Identity%20Theory.pdf" href="https://utplace.uk/pdf/1990a%20E.G.%20Boring%20and%20the%20Mind-Brain%20Identity%20Theory.pdf" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">put it</a> in the 1930s:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="346c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“To the author a perfect correlation is identity. Two events that always occur together at the same time in the same place, without any temporal or spatial differentiation at all, are not two events but the same event. The mind-body correlations as formulated at present, do not admit of spatial correlation, so they reduce to matters of simple correlation in time. The need for identification is no less urgent in this case.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="770b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, the following passage is how the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_G._Hardcastle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_G._Hardcastle" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Valerie Gray Hardcastle</a> went on to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/hardcastle1995.pdf" href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/hardcastle1995.pdf" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">put it </a>some 60 years after Boring:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ee8c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>f you find structural isomorphisms between our perceptions and twitches in the brain, then that is taken to be a good reason to think that the mind is nothing more than activity in the brain. (What other sort of evidence could you use?)”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="96f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s of course the case that readers don’t need to agree with everything in those two just-quoted passages. (I don’t.) They’re quoted simply because they clearly show that this issue has never been exclusively about <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22mere+correlations%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-DBH4w7JWR5XHQEFiE7qcqWbbTqQ%3A1705459572477&source=hp&ei=dD-nZda1G7mmhbIP8deguAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadNhJdTt3peHzpEgH_4dR2_qamQ3o8k&ved=0ahUKEwjWv_r_s-ODAxU5U0EAHfErCIcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22mere+correlations%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhMibWVyZSBjb3JyZWxhdGlvbnMiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSMMSUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAXagAXaqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22mere+correlations%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-DBH4w7JWR5XHQEFiE7qcqWbbTqQ%3A1705459572477&source=hp&ei=dD-nZda1G7mmhbIP8deguAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadNhJdTt3peHzpEgH_4dR2_qamQ3o8k&ved=0ahUKEwjWv_r_s-ODAxU5U0EAHfErCIcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22mere+correlations%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhMibWVyZSBjb3JyZWxhdGlvbnMiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSMMSUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAXagAXaqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“mere correlations”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="861f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, that seems downright obvious.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2d16"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those who claim (whether explicitly or implicitly) that “materialists” or neuroscientists believe that it’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all about correlations</em> seem to be either displaying bad faith, or simply showing their ignorance of neuroscience and philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e58d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, it’s certainly the case that not all correlations entail — or even imply — causation (or, in Goff’s case, identity). It’s just that in<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> some</em> cases they do!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c665"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So the following comparison will distinguish Goff’s position from Kastrup’s.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="753c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Smoking lots of cigarettes came to be strongly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correlated</em> with lung cancer. However, smoking lots of cigarettes is still not (to state the obvious) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">identical</em> to lung cancer. Instead, smoking lots of cigarettes has often <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">caused</em> lung cancer.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b64d" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Kastrup’s Reasons to Believe the Mind Generates the Brain</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="20c8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="547" data-image-id="1*e4tkV_jCpyUosBUgQ1t9Hw.png" data-width="1191" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*e4tkV_jCpyUosBUgQ1t9Hw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="41cc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the passage above, Kastrup<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>told us that</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="fd61"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“there are plenty of reasons to think that the brain does not generate the mind”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="274b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup may well have <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">plenty of reasons </em>to believe what he believes.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, there are also plenty of reasons to believe that the earth is flat, or that God is benevolent/malevolent, or that alien lizards rule the world.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4e54"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Are they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">good</em> reasons?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7ead"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Kastrup’s case, all his reasons to believe that the brain <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">doesn’</em>t cause the mind come from his commitment to<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">idealism</a>, as well as to his commitment to various religious (or “spiritual”) ideas and texts (+ the work of Carl Jung).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, why should “the mind look like a brain” in the first place?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f31"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Surely everyone outside Kastrup’s own idealist (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">school</em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>would have problems with that statement.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ac7a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, Kastrup does <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seem</em> to go into some detail. For example, he says<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">:</strong></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="070c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The brain is the image of the mind. It’s the cognitive representation we make of another mind, not the generator of the mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f116"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, exactly the same question as earlier can now be asked:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="320c"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Why should “the mind look like a brain” in the first place?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a972"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Kastrup’s own jargon, why should the brain be the “cognitive representation of another mind” at all? Why c<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">a</strong>n’t a lemon (or a triangle)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>be be the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">cognitive representation of another mind</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d4d0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup then returns to the earlier theme of the mind causing the brain (not vice versa) by adding the following words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="cb6d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“We are mental creatures, and our mentation when observed from the outside looks like a physical body and brain.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="391b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, why does “our mentation [] look[] like a physical body and brain”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f708"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, why are we “mental creatures”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="207f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does Kastrup mean that “we [are] essentially” (or exclusively) mental creatures?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7df8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, all this also ties into Kastrup’s underlying idealism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="971b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">literally everything</em> in the universe is “mentation” in Kastrup’s idealist worldview.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a209"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet again, why should <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mentation</em> (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mind</em>) look like “a physical body, a brain and body” in the first place? Why doesn’t mind look like a lemon (or a triangle)? More tellingly, the fantastic complexity of the brain is ignored when it comes to Kastrup’s categorical statements. Indeed, according to his idealist vision, that fantastic complexity of brains is simply a stand-in for <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">our mentation — </em>or for the (to use Donald Hoffman’s term) “projections” of our minds…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c905"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Donald Hoffman?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cd60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s worth noting here that Kastrup’s general position on brains and minds is almost identical to that of the cognitive psychologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Donald Hoffman</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e39b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Part Two</span></h3><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="40be" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="790c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="435" data-image-id="1*4Dz38xUaugVLpIJQM1Zrwg.png" data-width="771" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4Dz38xUaugVLpIJQM1Zrwg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1a8c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bernardo Kastrup’s idealism is very similar to Donald Hoffman’s idealism too…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0029"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s except for the fact that Hoffman uses the words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22icon%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-puLpFOvPY2GkGCHeUaPaEZ4D-OQ%3A1705459825594&source=hp&ei=cUCnZfj_IbqR9u8Po5CdiAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadOgb5YuH4RuCKtqCI1qHJ_SsZe8RAh&ved=0ahUKEwi4_NL4tOODAxW6iP0HHSNIB7EQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22icon%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJpY29uIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSKQ7UABY4zVwAHgAkAEAmAF-oAG6DqoBBDIwLjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICChAuGEMYgAQYigXCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgINEC4YgAQYigUYQxjUAsICChAuGIAEGIoFGEPCAhAQLhiABBgUGIcCGLEDGIMBwgINEC4YgAQYFBiHAhixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgINEC4YQxixAxiABBiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIGEAAYFhgewgIGEAAYHhgNwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22icon%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-puLpFOvPY2GkGCHeUaPaEZ4D-OQ%3A1705459825594&source=hp&ei=cUCnZfj_IbqR9u8Po5CdiAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadOgb5YuH4RuCKtqCI1qHJ_SsZe8RAh&ved=0ahUKEwi4_NL4tOODAxW6iP0HHSNIB7EQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22icon%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJpY29uIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSKQ7UABY4zVwAHgAkAEAmAF-oAG6DqoBBDIwLjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgIEECMYJ8ICChAuGEMYgAQYigXCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgINEC4YgAQYigUYQxjUAsICChAuGIAEGIoFGEPCAhAQLhiABBgUGIcCGLEDGIMBwgINEC4YgAQYFBiHAhixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgINEC4YQxixAxiABBiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIGEAAYFhgewgIGEAAYHhgNwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“icon”</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22interface%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn08Z_IrdGYhbPCQSwgOY-qasCjZwHA%3A1705459834489&ei=ekCnZcu7HYKYhbIPpd6QsAM&ved=0ahUKEwjL4PP8tOODAxUCTEEAHSUvBDYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22interface%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gImludGVyZmFjZSIyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAgYHkj0JFDABliLHnABeACQAQCYAZQBoAGxB6oBBDEwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgYQABgeGA3CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22interface%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn08Z_IrdGYhbPCQSwgOY-qasCjZwHA%3A1705459834489&ei=ekCnZcu7HYKYhbIPpd6QsAM&ved=0ahUKEwjL4PP8tOODAxUCTEEAHSUvBDYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22interface%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gImludGVyZmFjZSIyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAgYHkj0JFDABliLHnABeACQAQCYAZQBoAGxB6oBBDEwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgYQABgeGA3CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“interface”</a>, whereas Kastrup uses the words “image” and “representation”. However, these differences in terminology don’t actually make a big (or even a small) difference.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="14b9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">(Hoffman calls his own brand of idealism <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“conscious realism”</a>. Kastrup uses the term <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/" href="https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“analytic idealism”</a> about his own brand.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e59a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="65e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman has stated that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/On_the_Mystery_of_Being/7RKaDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22brains+and+neurons+do+not+exist+unperceived%22&pg=PT84&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/On_the_Mystery_of_Being/7RKaDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22brains+and+neurons+do+not+exist+unperceived%22&pg=PT84&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“brains and neurons do not exist unperceived”</a>. That isn’t a claim that our perceptions don’t (as Hoffman puts it elsewhere) “resemble” whatever it is that (to use Kastrup’s word again) “generates” them. Instead, this is an explicit claim that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">brains and neurons don’t exist when unperceived.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7558"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman makes his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.wordsense.eu/Berkeleyan/" href="https://www.wordsense.eu/Berkeleyan/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Berkeleyan</a> position even clearer<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.coursehero.com/file/90763541/2-hoffman-peeking-behind-the-icons-editpdf/" href="https://www.coursehero.com/file/90763541/2-hoffman-peeking-behind-the-icons-editpdf/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">in the following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7a86"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The phenomenal volleyball </i>[or brain]<i> isn’t there when you don’t look </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="62c0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman also wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this simple line</a> about a brain:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8519"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If you don’t look, it’s not there.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ec7e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Then Hoffman immediately<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.coursehero.com/file/90763541/2-hoffman-peeking-behind-the-icons-editpdf/" href="https://www.coursehero.com/file/90763541/2-hoffman-peeking-behind-the-icons-editpdf/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">adds the following</a> scientific gloss on his idealist position:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3a02"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The relational volleyball is circuits and software, and it isn’t literally off-white either. There may be portions of the software whose intent is to spray photons on your eyes such that you will construct an off-white phenomenal volleyball. But this software isn’t any color at all. And the color of the circuits is irrelevant to the color of the phenomenal volleyball</i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="895a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet if you don’t look at what’s defined as (to use Hoffman’s word) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22phenomenal%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn09ikSllVjzMynegUITDozF2hG-fKQ%3A1705460017572&source=hp&ei=MUGnZcmgIZKihbIP3OSEiA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadPQe5sg1EHCUcNNccztuUeawVhxDRK&ved=0ahUKEwiJ_ZjUteODAxUSUUEAHVwyAeEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22phenomenal%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgwicGhlbm9tZW5hbCIyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBixAxiDATILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESNcKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAbEBoAGxAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22phenomenal%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn09ikSllVjzMynegUITDozF2hG-fKQ%3A1705460017572&source=hp&ei=MUGnZcmgIZKihbIP3OSEiA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadPQe5sg1EHCUcNNccztuUeawVhxDRK&ved=0ahUKEwiJ_ZjUteODAxUSUUEAHVwyAeEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22phenomenal%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgwicGhlbm9tZW5hbCIyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBixAxiDATILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESNcKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAbEBoAGxAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“phenomenal”</a>, then of course it’s not there as a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenal object</em> when no one is looking at it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4722"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s true by definition!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="36e6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, most people won’t also accept that that the<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> physical </em>brain<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">only there when someone is looking at it</em>. Of course, Hoffman collapses this distinction between a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenal brain</em> (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Phenomenalism’</a>) and a physical brain.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a415"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, a physicalist can accept Hoffman’s term “phenomenal volleyball” (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenal brain</em>). A “phenomenon” is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">by definition</em> something that only belong to minds or to conscious experiences.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Phenomenal</em> = <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenal" href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenal" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“known through the senses”</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> Historically, that’s essentially how that word was used by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Immanuel Kant</a> some 240 years ago. In Kant’s scheme at least, we have <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomena,</em> and we also have <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">noumen</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">a</em>. (Readers — and others —needn’t accept these Kantian terms and philosophical distinctions at all.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d81"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this means that if a brain is entirely defined as a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenal brain</em>, then <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">by definition</em> it can’t exist if no one is looking at it. However, that’s because — again — Hoffman simply means <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenal brain </em>by the single word “brain”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2745"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, more relevantly, is Kastrup himself making the same mistake as Hoffman?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c3e0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, just as I’ve compared Kastrup to Hoffman, so both Kastrup and Hoffman can also be compared to the New Age writer and businessman <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="bcac" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1968"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="454" data-image-id="1*Nmak5V96pI483Cfn7XdYZQ.png" data-width="820" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Nmak5V96pI483Cfn7XdYZQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a Medium essay called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/is-your-brain-an-illusion-b2566a6df3d4" href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/is-your-brain-an-illusion-b2566a6df3d4" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Is Your Brain an Illusion?’</a>, Chopra <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Take+away+the+light%2C+brightness%2C+and+images%2C+and+the+experience+of+seeing+is+gone.+It+stands+to+reason+that+your+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+and+once+this+point+is+conceded%2C+it+is+the+opening+edge+of+the+wedge.+If+the+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+then+it+doesn%27t+possess+any+of+the+five+senses.+If+that%27s+true%2C+then+the+brain+has+no+experience%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+yet+you%C2%A0do.%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn09sP_PnUSFt_7_2m42v1YXCyG2orw%3A1705460458277&source=hp&ei=6kKnZfOVD_S_hbIP7by8kA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadQ-ie8ei6xTAO-s6sq-_791YRmX1lQ&ved=0ahUKEwjzsqumt-ODAxX0X0EAHW0eD-IQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Take+away+the+light%2C+brightness%2C+and+images%2C+and+the+experience+of+seeing+is+gone.+It+stands+to+reason+that+your+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+and+once+this+point+is+conceded%2C+it+is+the+opening+edge+of+the+wedge.+If+the+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+then+it+doesn%27t+possess+any+of+the+five+senses.+If+that%27s+true%2C+then+the+brain+has+no+experience%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+yet+you%C2%A0do.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Take+away+the+light%2C+brightness%2C+and+images%2C+and+the+experience+of+seeing+is+gone.+It+stands+to+reason+that+your+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+and+once+this+point+is+conceded%2C+it+is+the+opening+edge+of+the+wedge.+If+the+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+then+it+doesn%27t+possess+any+of+the+five+senses.+If+that%27s+true%2C+then+the+brain+has+no+experience%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+yet+you%C2%A0do.%22&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn09sP_PnUSFt_7_2m42v1YXCyG2orw%3A1705460458277&source=hp&ei=6kKnZfOVD_S_hbIP7by8kA4&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadQ-ie8ei6xTAO-s6sq-_791YRmX1lQ&ved=0ahUKEwjzsqumt-ODAxX0X0EAHW0eD-IQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Take+away+the+light%2C+brightness%2C+and+images%2C+and+the+experience+of+seeing+is+gone.+It+stands+to+reason+that+your+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+and+once+this+point+is+conceded%2C+it+is+the+opening+edge+of+the+wedge.+If+the+brain+doesn%27t+see%2C+then+it+doesn%27t+possess+any+of+the+five+senses.+If+that%27s+true%2C+then+the+brain+has+no+experience%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+yet+you%C2%A0do.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2b69"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Take away the light, brightness, and images, and the experience of seeing is gone. It stands to reason that your brain doesn’t see, and once this point is conceded, it is the opening edge of the wedge. If the brain doesn’t see, then it doesn’t possess any of the five senses. If that’s true, then the brain has no experience — and yet you do.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ff48"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I don’t really understand this passage. Even in the context of Chopra’s entire essay, it’s hard to see what he’s getting at.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="998a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The second sentence (“once this point is conceded, it is the opening edge of the wedge”) seems like a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">non sequitur</em>. And yet, according to Chopra, “it stands to reason [that the] brain doesn’t see”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="95cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not clear if Chopra includes the eyes as being part of the brain. </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">[See<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Is+the+eye+a+part+of+the+brain%3F&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn08jktRzGwvI5LicgIM151uvoPdPmQ%3A1705478257167&ei=cYinZb7xCbqthbIP7eqduAg&ved=0ahUKEwj-7cLN-eODAxW6VkEAHW11B4cQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Is+the+eye+a+part+of+the+brain%3F&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH0lzIHRoZSBleWUgYSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBicmFpbj8yBBAjGCcyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI9BhQ1QVYhQhwAXgBkAEAmAFXoAHyAaoBATO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIHECMYsAIYJ8ICBhAAGB4YDcICBBAAGB7iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Is+the+eye+a+part+of+the+brain%3F&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn08jktRzGwvI5LicgIM151uvoPdPmQ%3A1705478257167&ei=cYinZb7xCbqthbIP7eqduAg&ved=0ahUKEwj-7cLN-eODAxW6VkEAHW11B4cQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Is+the+eye+a+part+of+the+brain%3F&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH0lzIHRoZSBleWUgYSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBicmFpbj8yBBAjGCcyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNI9BhQ1QVYhQhwAXgBkAEAmAFXoAHyAaoBATO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIHECMYsAIYJ8ICBhAAGB4YDcICBBAAGB7iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong" style="font-family: arial;"> </strong><span style="font-family: arial;">It’s certainly the case that </span><em class="markup--em markup--p-em" style="font-family: arial;">i</em><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>f</i> he doesn’t, then that may well explain at least some of his words…</span></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cc63"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyway, none of these technicalities really matter.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d3d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s because Chopra’s main point is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealist </em>in nature. (In Chopra’s words: “The brain has no experience — and yet you do.”) In other words, the brain isn’t required for experiences. Or, in Kastrup’s terms, the brain is the “image” (or “representation”) of Chopra’s “you”. Alternatively, in Hoffman’s terms, the brain is an “icon” of Chopra’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">you</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="46a8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this leads to talk of “cosmic [or universal] consciousness”, which is a very-popular subject when it comes to “spiritual” people and idealists. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn0_DwjTu1PTdrjDQyKTvDMrmHcdePg%3A1705478370787&ei=4oinZfDZL-2nhbIPxMSy0AE&ved=0ahUKEwjw0tmD-uODAxXtU0EAHUSiDBoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFiJjb3NtaWMgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyIyBRAuGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgHGB4yBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIUEC4YgAQYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQJIyixQ5AZY-yZwAXgBkAEAmAF8oAGzCqoBBDEyLjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIHEAAYgAQYDcICExAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGEYY-QHCAhEQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGIoFGJECwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgIqEAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEB4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCLoGBggBEAEYE7oGBggCEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn0_DwjTu1PTdrjDQyKTvDMrmHcdePg%3A1705478370787&ei=4oinZfDZL-2nhbIPxMSy0AE&ved=0ahUKEwjw0tmD-uODAxXtU0EAHUSiDBoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+consciousness%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFiJjb3NtaWMgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyIyBRAuGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgHGB4yBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIUEC4YgAQYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQJIyixQ5AZY-yZwAXgBkAEAmAF8oAGzCqoBBDEyLjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIHEAAYgAQYDcICExAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGEYY-QHCAhEQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGIoFGJECwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgIqEAAYgAQYigUYkQIYsQMYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEB4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCLoGBggBEAEYE7oGBggCEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="512e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Universal Consciousness and the Field of Subjectivity</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d118"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="624" data-image-id="1*UgVRH2GyvE3SuCXHjCTcPA.png" data-width="1034" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*UgVRH2GyvE3SuCXHjCTcPA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">Bernardo Kastrup helped found the Essentia Foundation. [See </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-heart-and-the-mind-our-founding-story/seeing/#:~:text=The%20Essentia%20Foundation%27s%20origin%20story,connection%20between%20heart%20and%20mind." href="https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-heart-and-the-mind-our-founding-story/seeing/#:~:text=The%20Essentia%20Foundation%27s%20origin%20story,connection%20between%20heart%20and%20mind." rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">here</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">.]</strong></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="bdc9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup claims that “the words ‘universal consciousness [are] perfectly descriptive”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d4c8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Why are these words <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">perfectly</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">descriptive</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d6e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Kastrup, they’re perfectly descriptive because “consciousness has no boundaries within the physical universe”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Really?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3ac2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Who says so?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="850b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, Kastrup certainly says so.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3647"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, Kastrup (scare-quoted) “explanation” doesn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">explain </em>anything. However, his supporters and fans may simply accept it because it sounds and feels good to them.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b3d6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, what is it, exactly, that “has no boundaries within the physical universe”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d391"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Telling me that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">it is consciousness</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">that has no boundaries</em> is to tell me nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5630"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, Kastrup then simply substitutes the word “consciousness” with the words “field of subjectivity” — as in the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6fff"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“A more technical way to to describe it would be a </i><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong">field</span><i> of subjectivity that has no spatial bounds.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="92ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now we can ask these two questions:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="4546"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(1) What is this “field of subjectivity”? (2) Why is it universal?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0cb9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">field of subjectivity</em> stretch to the HD1 galaxy, which is some 13.5 billion light-years away?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9b15"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And even if it does, then what <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> this<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>field of subjectivity which stretches to the HD1 galaxy?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e2c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More narrowly, how is the word “subjectivity” being used by Kastrup? </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Subjectivity = <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=subjecivity&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-rOAOqfbuNLx32oC9VgcxAcVIJcg%3A1705460504746&source=hp&ei=GEOnZYLcK966hbIP0v21iAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadRKMU7boahgopvcq9RE0Fl5-ogO8Qh&ved=0ahUKEwiCyL-8t-ODAxVeXUEAHdJ-DVEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=subjecivity&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=subjecivity&sca_esv=599002232&sxsrf=ACQVn0-rOAOqfbuNLx32oC9VgcxAcVIJcg%3A1705460504746&source=hp&ei=GEOnZYLcK966hbIP0v21iAU&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadRKMU7boahgopvcq9RE0Fl5-ogO8Qh&ved=0ahUKEwiCyL-8t-ODAxVeXUEAHdJ-DVEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=subjecivity&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the quality of existing in someone’s mind rather than the external world”</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="95a8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Doesn’t subjectivity require a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">subject</em> who (or that) is more than its/his/her/etc. subjectivity? (Otherwise we’re in danger of going around in circles.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d65c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Who or what is the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">subject</em> here?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e944"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>consciousness — i.e., not subjectivity — being deemed to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+is+fundamental%22&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn09lJhByvDTv2rNqCKRILiwJoj55hg%3A1705478521583&source=hp&ei=eYmnZaObIeq5hbIP4bSggAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaeXiaPmRaE1UP57AJAqYKk5PQNS6WQ6&ved=0ahUKEwjju8vL-uODAxXqXEEAHWEaCGAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+is+fundamental%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih4iY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCIyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0ilGlAAWOEUcAB4AJABAJgBfaAB8QWqAQM4LjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAg&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22consciousness+is+fundamental%22&sca_esv=599052157&sxsrf=ACQVn09lJhByvDTv2rNqCKRILiwJoj55hg%3A1705478521583&source=hp&ei=eYmnZaObIeq5hbIP4bSggAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaeXiaPmRaE1UP57AJAqYKk5PQNS6WQ6&ved=0ahUKEwjju8vL-uODAxXqXEEAHWEaCGAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22consciousness+is+fundamental%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih4iY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCIyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0ilGlAAWOEUcAB4AJABAJgBfaAB8QWqAQM4LjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAg&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“fundamental”</a> help us here?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="992a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, we now get another categorical passage from Kastrup: this time about about the (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">his</em>) “field of subjectivity”. It goes as follows:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e44b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The unbound field of subjectivity that underlies our nature. And because we are part of nature, that field of subjectivity underlies us. And that’s why we are essentially subjective creatures.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9d84"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As before, the words “the unbound field of subjectivity that underlies our nature” just amount to a categorical statement. Indeed, the passage above basically reads like a quote from some kind of religious text.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="05e8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="376" data-image-id="1*CHqjvb9G722VQopwHzjRPg.png" data-width="1395" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*CHqjvb9G722VQopwHzjRPg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The screenshot above is a reply to the YouTube interview on which this essay is based. Indeed, virtually all the replies under the video take on this form. In other words, there isn’t a single criticism of Bernardo Kastrup’s views to be found there. (There isn’t even a reply that’s mildly questioning.) This mass uniformity almost never occurs with other YouTube videos on philosophical issues.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8d7f" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Kastrup, Hoffman and Chopra on Religion</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="bf59"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="814" data-image-id="1*IYK9YYWxFOIsWA4cCS3YmA.png" data-width="537" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*IYK9YYWxFOIsWA4cCS3YmA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="36af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some readers have responded to my previous essays by saying that I unfairly bring up religion when discussing the work of idealists, dual aspect monists, etc. [See Medium writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a>’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/paul-austin-murphy-on-motivations-for-anti-physicalism-5239188931df" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/paul-austin-murphy-on-motivations-for-anti-physicalism-5239188931df" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Paul Austin Murphy on Motivations for Anti-Physicalism’</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Edit</strong>: note that a responder to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">this</em> essay has made exactly the same point! See responses.)]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="123d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, these idealists do so too!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="46fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, in the same essay just quoted<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> (</strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/is-your-brain-an-illusion-b2566a6df3d4" href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/is-your-brain-an-illusion-b2566a6df3d4" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Is Your Brain an Illusion?’</a>), so does Deepak Chopra himself. For example, Chopra <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Maya+exposes+the+fallacy+that+the+brain+is+the+same+as+the+mind.+Neuroscience+would+adamantly+deny+this%2C+because+the+entire+basis+of+brain+science+for+99%25+of+neuroscientists%2C+is+that+brain+%3D%C2%A0mind.%22&sca_esv=598837661&sxsrf=ACQVn0_DXdOLbjNmTnUyaCObkoVnwcLEdw%3A1705422400777&source=hp&ei=QK6mZei4LZKmhbIPtbOn6Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa8UBflrUdAkY5Vk3xMxZ31sJCk7jsk&ved=0ahUKEwjo2I3DqeKDAxUSU0EAHbXZCX0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Maya+exposes+the+fallacy+that+the+brain+is+the+same+as+the+mind.+Neuroscience+would+adamantly+deny+this%2C+because+the+entire+basis+of+brain+science+for+99%25+of+neuroscientists%2C+is+that+brain+%3D%C2%A0mind.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IscBIk1heWEgZXhwb3NlcyB0aGUgZmFsbGFjeSB0aGF0IHRoZSBicmFpbiBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgbWluZC4gTmV1cm9zY2llbmNlIHdvdWxkIGFkYW1hbnRseSBkZW55IHRoaXMsIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGVudGlyZSBiYXNpcyBvZiBicmFpbiBzY2llbmNlIGZvciA5OSUgb2YgbmV1cm9zY2llbnRpc3RzLCBpcyB0aGF0IGJyYWluID3CoG1pbmQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Maya+exposes+the+fallacy+that+the+brain+is+the+same+as+the+mind.+Neuroscience+would+adamantly+deny+this%2C+because+the+entire+basis+of+brain+science+for+99%25+of+neuroscientists%2C+is+that+brain+%3D%C2%A0mind.%22&sca_esv=598837661&sxsrf=ACQVn0_DXdOLbjNmTnUyaCObkoVnwcLEdw%3A1705422400777&source=hp&ei=QK6mZei4LZKmhbIPtbOn6Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa8UBflrUdAkY5Vk3xMxZ31sJCk7jsk&ved=0ahUKEwjo2I3DqeKDAxUSU0EAHbXZCX0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Maya+exposes+the+fallacy+that+the+brain+is+the+same+as+the+mind.+Neuroscience+would+adamantly+deny+this%2C+because+the+entire+basis+of+brain+science+for+99%25+of+neuroscientists%2C+is+that+brain+%3D%C2%A0mind.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IscBIk1heWEgZXhwb3NlcyB0aGUgZmFsbGFjeSB0aGF0IHRoZSBicmFpbiBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgbWluZC4gTmV1cm9zY2llbmNlIHdvdWxkIGFkYW1hbnRseSBkZW55IHRoaXMsIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGVudGlyZSBiYXNpcyBvZiBicmFpbiBzY2llbmNlIGZvciA5OSUgb2YgbmV1cm9zY2llbnRpc3RzLCBpcyB0aGF0IGJyYWluID3CoG1pbmQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e323"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Maya exposes the fallacy that the brain is the same as the mind. Neuroscience would adamantly deny this, because the entire basis of brain science for 99% of neuroscientists, is that brain = mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ecae"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note</strong> on ‘Maya’.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d68"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chopra becomes even more explicit (or open) in the following passage. (He uses the words of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Erwin Schrödinger</a> to give his spiritual idealism some scientific credence.) Here <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+reason+it+matters+was+summarized+by+another+great+quantum+pioneer%2C+Erwin+Schr%C3%B6dinger%2C+who+was+a+great+student+of+Vedic+philosophy+and+particularly+of+its+main+documents%2C+known+as+the+Upanishads.+%27The+Upanishads+are+the+most+comprehensive+philosophical+treatise+ever+written+by+man.+They+are+based+on+an+ancient+idea%2C+as+old+as+Indian+thought+itself%2C+that+the+most+profound+reality+is+One+and+that+this+One+is+identical+with+our+own%C2%A0Self.%27%22&sca_esv=599014582&sxsrf=ACQVn0-3JeDsUPh5Vev4Ec28y80W_c1-hg%3A1705460765410&source=hp&ei=HUSnZdGsF_ijhbIPuJe7sAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadSLR8UyayHJ4EHf0D0aJnEuL8R2yiQ&ved=0ahUKEwiRr-W4uOODAxX4UUEAHbjLDnYQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22The+reason+it+matters+was+summarized+by+another+great+quantum+pioneer%2C+Erwin+Schr%C3%B6dinger%2C+who+was+a+great+student+of+Vedic+philosophy+and+particularly+of+its+main+documents%2C+known+as+the+Upanishads.+%27The+Upanishads+are+the+most+comprehensive+philosophical+treatise+ever+written+by+man.+They+are+based+on+an+ancient+idea%2C+as+old+as+Indian+thought+itself%2C+that+the+most+profound+reality+is+One+and+that+this+One+is+identical+with+our+own%C2%A0Self.%27%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+reason+it+matters+was+summarized+by+another+great+quantum+pioneer%2C+Erwin+Schr%C3%B6dinger%2C+who+was+a+great+student+of+Vedic+philosophy+and+particularly+of+its+main+documents%2C+known+as+the+Upanishads.+%27The+Upanishads+are+the+most+comprehensive+philosophical+treatise+ever+written+by+man.+They+are+based+on+an+ancient+idea%2C+as+old+as+Indian+thought+itself%2C+that+the+most+profound+reality+is+One+and+that+this+One+is+identical+with+our+own%C2%A0Self.%27%22&sca_esv=599014582&sxsrf=ACQVn0-3JeDsUPh5Vev4Ec28y80W_c1-hg%3A1705460765410&source=hp&ei=HUSnZdGsF_ijhbIPuJe7sAc&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZadSLR8UyayHJ4EHf0D0aJnEuL8R2yiQ&ved=0ahUKEwiRr-W4uOODAxX4UUEAHbjLDnYQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22The+reason+it+matters+was+summarized+by+another+great+quantum+pioneer%2C+Erwin+Schr%C3%B6dinger%2C+who+was+a+great+student+of+Vedic+philosophy+and+particularly+of+its+main+documents%2C+known+as+the+Upanishads.+%27The+Upanishads+are+the+most+comprehensive+philosophical+treatise+ever+written+by+man.+They+are+based+on+an+ancient+idea%2C+as+old+as+Indian+thought+itself%2C+that+the+most+profound+reality+is+One+and+that+this+One+is+identical+with+our+own%C2%A0Self.%27%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">goes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="349f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The reason it matters was summarized by another great quantum pioneer, Erwin Schrödinger, who was a great student of Vedic philosophy and particularly of its main documents, known as the Upanishads. ‘The Upanishads are the most comprehensive philosophical treatise ever written by man. They are based on an ancient idea, as old as Indian thought itself, that the most profound reality is One and that this One is identical with our own Self.’”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea5b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[Erwin Schrödinger was a great physicist, not a great philosopher or a great commentator on Vedic texts.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3297"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, neither Kastrup nor Hoffman are as explicit about their religious influences as Chopra is. That said, like Chopra himself, both Kastrup and Hoffman are idealists. Both are friends with Chopra. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Hoffman and Chopra <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Deepak+Chopra&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn0-KzTQwDY9kP1eBWRQuT8YiJgENDA%3A1705420892411&source=hp&ei=XKimZYL0FtOzhbIPqJyY6Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa2bCUfYtP__yelIOqBkTLhm8tN9_kM&ved=0ahUKEwiCku7zo-KDAxXTWUEAHSgOBn0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Deepak+Chopra&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgRGVlcGFrIENob3ByYTIGEAAYFhgeSJhQUABY9ENwAHgAkAEAmAGKAaAB6heqAQQyMy45uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGIoFGCfCAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgUQLhiABMICDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAggQLhiABBjUAsICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYD&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Deepak+Chopra&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn0-KzTQwDY9kP1eBWRQuT8YiJgENDA%3A1705420892411&source=hp&ei=XKimZYL0FtOzhbIPqJyY6Ac&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZaa2bCUfYtP__yelIOqBkTLhm8tN9_kM&ved=0ahUKEwiCku7zo-KDAxXTWUEAHSgOBn0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Deepak+Chopra&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgRGVlcGFrIENob3ByYTIGEAAYFhgeSJhQUABY9ENwAHgAkAEAmAGKAaAB6heqAQQyMy45uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGIoFGCfCAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgUQLhiABMICDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAggQLhiABBjUAsICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYD&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, and Kastrup and Chopra <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+and+Deepak+Chopra&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn09Is_sqybDOKmgg4xKGd7nGK7-CYw%3A1705420904572&ei=aKimZdPKItK4hbIPzriH-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwjTntb5o-KDAxVSXEEAHU7cAX8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+and+Deepak+Chopra&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIkJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgYW5kIERlZXBhayBDaG9wcmEyBhAAGBYYHki8RVAAWOArcAB4AJABAJgBkgKgAYwSqgEGMy4xNS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIGEAAYBxgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgPwgIIEAAYBRgHGB7CAggQABiJBRiiBMICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIECEYoAEYwwTCAgoQIRgKGKABGMMEwgIMECEYChigARjDBBgK4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+and+Deepak+Chopra&sca_esv=598826226&sxsrf=ACQVn09Is_sqybDOKmgg4xKGd7nGK7-CYw%3A1705420904572&ei=aKimZdPKItK4hbIPzriH-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwjTntb5o-KDAxVSXEEAHU7cAX8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+and+Deepak+Chopra&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIkJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgYW5kIERlZXBhayBDaG9wcmEyBhAAGBYYHki8RVAAWOArcAB4AJABAJgBkgKgAYwSqgEGMy4xNS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIGEAAYBxgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgPwgIIEAAYBRgHGB7CAggQABiJBRiiBMICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIECEYoAEYwwTCAgoQIRgKGKABGMMEwgIMECEYChigARjDBBgK4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> And both do indeed cite and mention (if less often than Chopra) various religious texts and ideas.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="851c"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8b8c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Note:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="1df1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This is one definition:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b3a6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“<span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">Maya</span>, literally ‘illusion’ or ‘magic’, has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context. In later Vedic texts, <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">māyā</span> connotes a ‘magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem’; the principle which shows ‘attributeless Absolute’ as having ‘attributes’.”</i></span></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-46434054890688189752024-01-29T20:17:00.000-08:002024-01-29T20:17:39.373-08:00David Bohm: Determinist, Scientific Realist… and ‘Mystic’<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">In certain respects at least, it’s odd that the physicist </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">David Bohm</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> (1917–1992) has often been recruited to various </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=New+Age+philosophy&sca_esv=596314270&source=hp&ei=vUmaZfKZHP6B9u8P5JyRuAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpXzcCSyNDmkwNhbfIpmJRKwVPIIRof&ved=0ahUKEwiy7Lz918qDAxX-gP0HHWROBCcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=New+Age+philosophy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJOZXcgQWdlIHBoaWxvc29waHkyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESMgIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAU-gAU-qAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=New+Age+philosophy&sca_esv=596314270&source=hp&ei=vUmaZfKZHP6B9u8P5JyRuAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpXzcCSyNDmkwNhbfIpmJRKwVPIIRof&ved=0ahUKEwiy7Lz918qDAxX-gP0HHWROBCcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=New+Age+philosophy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJOZXcgQWdlIHBoaWxvc29waHkyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESMgIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAU-gAU-qAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">New Age, </strong></a><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+philosophy&sca_esv=596314270&source=hp&ei=8kmaZeGbDtuG9u8PudybuAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpYAhvZfKWI8KuH0pZA3Ho7yg70UIdu&ved=0ahUKEwjh3NGW2MqDAxVbg_0HHTnuBncQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+philosophy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRzcGlyaXR1YWwgcGhpbG9zb3BoeTIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGBYYHhgPSM8HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAVagAVaqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+philosophy&sca_esv=596314270&source=hp&ei=8kmaZeGbDtuG9u8PudybuAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpYAhvZfKWI8KuH0pZA3Ho7yg70UIdu&ved=0ahUKEwjh3NGW2MqDAxVbg_0HHTnuBncQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+philosophy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRzcGlyaXR1YWwgcGhpbG9zb3BoeTIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGBYYHhgPSM8HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAVagAVaqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">spiritual philosophy</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">, and </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=597118812&sxsrf=ACQVn097NGq4no6UK55e2ZQ0W866oJPRCA%3A1704864177625&source=hp&ei=sSmeZde9JISchbIP6PuX6AY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ43wfHy_ofQsCf-gpMAHdPriwyDzO2d&ved=0ahUKEwiX2sj9idKDAxUETkEAHej9BW0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc20yBRAAGIAEMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSLcSUABYhwxwAHgAkAEAmAFgoAH0AaoBATO4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealism&sca_esv=597118812&sxsrf=ACQVn097NGq4no6UK55e2ZQ0W866oJPRCA%3A1704864177625&source=hp&ei=sSmeZde9JISchbIP6PuX6AY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ43wfHy_ofQsCf-gpMAHdPriwyDzO2d&ved=0ahUKEwiX2sj9idKDAxUETkEAHej9BW0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhJzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc20yBRAAGIAEMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSLcSUABYhwxwAHgAkAEAmAFgoAH0AaoBATO4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">spiritual idealist</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> camps. Why odd? It’s because Bohm was both a determinist and a scientific realist. Indeed, Bohm played down the importance of the “subjective” when it came to </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">quantum mechanics</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> (or quantum theory). Relatedly, Bohm was strongly against the positions of the </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Copenhagen school</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">. Yet Copenhagenist positions are precisely those positions which New Agers, spiritual philosophers and spiritual idealists often positively quote and mention.</strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="609c"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9255"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*TqqddRZg6GJcEYVdgVQ7Qg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*TqqddRZg6GJcEYVdgVQ7Qg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="5b30"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Both the title and the content of the following essay are related to my previous piece, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/the-weird-case-of-wolfgang-pauli-hardcore-positivist-and-mystic-041551d67dde" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/the-weird-case-of-wolfgang-pauli-hardcore-positivist-and-mystic-041551d67dde" target="_blank">‘The Weird Case of Wolfgang Pauli: Hardcore Positivist and ‘Mystic’’</a>. See also the numerous publications, memes, etc. on “David Bohm the mystic” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+the+mystic&sca_esv=595978342&ei=8x6YZaCQN_XHkPIP2d27wA0&ved=0ahUKEwjg1bTyxsaDAxX1I0QIHdnuDtgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+the+mystic&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFURhdmlkIEJvaG0gdGhlIG15c3RpYzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSJosUJ0HWMwPcAF4AZABAJgBgwKgAbEMqgEDMi03uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTCAggQIRigARjDBOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+the+mystic&sca_esv=595978342&ei=8x6YZaCQN_XHkPIP2d27wA0&ved=0ahUKEwjg1bTyxsaDAxX1I0QIHdnuDtgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+the+mystic&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFURhdmlkIEJvaG0gdGhlIG15c3RpYzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSJosUJ0HWMwPcAF4AZABAJgBgwKgAbEMqgEDMi03uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTCAggQIRigARjDBOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, and on “David Bohm the spiritual scientist” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+the+spiritual+scientist&sca_esv=595978342&ei=CR-YZaXZK6LGkPIP7s6J0Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjlgej8xsaDAxUiI0QIHW5nAqoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+the+spiritual+scientist&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIkRhdmlkIEJvaG0gdGhlIHNwaXJpdHVhbCBzY2llbnRpc3QyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiKQVDKBFimNHADeAKQAQCYAaECoAGQJaoBBDItMjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgQQABhHwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBxAhGAoYoAHCAgQQIRgVwgIIECEYFhgeGB3iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+the+spiritual+scientist&sca_esv=595978342&ei=CR-YZaXZK6LGkPIP7s6J0Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjlgej8xsaDAxUiI0QIHW5nAqoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+the+spiritual+scientist&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIkRhdmlkIEJvaG0gdGhlIHNwaXJpdHVhbCBzY2llbnRpc3QyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiKQVDKBFimNHADeAKQAQCYAaECoAGQJaoBBDItMjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgQQABhHwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBxAhGAoYoAHCAgQQIRgVwgIIECEYFhgeGB3iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="878c"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="d47f"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) David Bohm as Mystic</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Bohmian Holism</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) David Bohm’s Determinism</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) The Observer and Scientific Subjectivism</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Einstein, Schrödinger and Bell on Determinism and Subjectivism</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Conclusion</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8f70"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="592" data-image-id="1*pLrPADaPt-qvGoEedZjB4w.png" data-width="790" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*pLrPADaPt-qvGoEedZjB4w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="54e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even some spiritual and religious fans of David Bohm’s ideas acknowledge that he was a determinist. Take, for example, Medium’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald Baron</a>, who states <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22He+didn%27t+like.+%5B%5D+Indeterminism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+uncertainty+principle+and+other+features+of+quantum+behavior+undermined+physical+determinism+and+opened+the+door+to+free%C2%A0will.%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=tfqYZZ-5JdGihbIPoIOjiA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkIxTdmbUofwbcWRV3uaMjrtKZeQN7f&ved=0ahUKEwjf55a8mMiDAxVRUUEAHaDBCNEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22He+didn%27t+like.+%5B%5D+Indeterminism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+uncertainty+principle+and+other+features+of+quantum+behavior+undermined+physical+determinism+and+opened+the+door+to+free%C2%A0will.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqwBIkhlIGRpZG4ndCBsaWtlLiBbXSBJbmRldGVybWluaXNt4oCKLeKAinRoZSB1bmNlcnRhaW50eSBwcmluY2lwbGUgYW5kIG90aGVyIGZlYXR1cmVzIG9mIHF1YW50dW0gYmVoYXZpb3IgdW5kZXJtaW5lZCBwaHlzaWNhbCBkZXRlcm1pbmlzbSBhbmQgb3BlbmVkIHRoZSBkb29yIHRvIGZyZWXCoHdpbGwuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22He+didn%27t+like.+%5B%5D+Indeterminism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+uncertainty+principle+and+other+features+of+quantum+behavior+undermined+physical+determinism+and+opened+the+door+to+free%C2%A0will.%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=tfqYZZ-5JdGihbIPoIOjiA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkIxTdmbUofwbcWRV3uaMjrtKZeQN7f&ved=0ahUKEwjf55a8mMiDAxVRUUEAHaDBCNEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22He+didn%27t+like.+%5B%5D+Indeterminism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+uncertainty+principle+and+other+features+of+quantum+behavior+undermined+physical+determinism+and+opened+the+door+to+free%C2%A0will.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqwBIkhlIGRpZG4ndCBsaWtlLiBbXSBJbmRldGVybWluaXNt4oCKLeKAinRoZSB1bmNlcnRhaW50eSBwcmluY2lwbGUgYW5kIG90aGVyIGZlYXR1cmVzIG9mIHF1YW50dW0gYmVoYXZpb3IgdW5kZXJtaW5lZCBwaHlzaWNhbCBkZXRlcm1pbmlzbSBhbmQgb3BlbmVkIHRoZSBkb29yIHRvIGZyZWXCoHdpbGwuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="99fc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Bohm]<i> didn’t like </i>[]<i> indeterminism — the uncertainty principle and other features of quantum behavior undermined physical determinism and opened the door to free will.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a2d3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron, on the other hand, wants to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">open the door</em> to free will and the spirit (or soul). He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/thanks-graham-id-be-happy-to-pursue-this-further-with-you-as-i-don-t-agree-that-free-will-has-db4abb1bb10a" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/thanks-graham-id-be-happy-to-pursue-this-further-with-you-as-i-don-t-agree-that-free-will-has-db4abb1bb10a" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="95a6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> I don’t agree that free will has nothing to do with good and evil. It seems central to the question. Even those strongly defending reductionism, physicalism and determinism point out that these accounts pose a great challenge to the idea of human agency and accountability.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4033"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, some of the earlier statements about Bohm should be qualified a little.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d7ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps Bohm only held that determinism and<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>scientific realism reigned supreme… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">at the quantum level</em>.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ba0c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="636" data-image-id="1*lN5yhmMhtDUt10DiGLO-cw.png" data-width="687" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*lN5yhmMhtDUt10DiGLO-cw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="82df"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It must also be said here that there are some academics who state that Bohm wasn’t a determinist at all.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+wasn%27t+a+determinist&sca_esv=596150050&ei=H_iYZb39I_GfhbIPj6602AE&ved=0ahUKEwj9iMCAlsiDAxXxT0EAHQ8XDRsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+wasn%27t+a+determinist&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+wasn%27t+a+determinist&sca_esv=596150050&ei=H_iYZb39I_GfhbIPj6602AE&ved=0ahUKEwj9iMCAlsiDAxXxT0EAHQ8XDRsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+wasn%27t+a+determinist&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, and a paper called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22557/7/Why%20Bohm%20was%20never%20a%20determinist%20.pdf" href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22557/7/Why%20Bohm%20was%20never%20a%20determinist%20.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Why Bohm was never a determinist’</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> However, after reading some of these writings, the main two arguments are basically the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="9216"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) Bohm wasn’t </span>exclusively<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> a determinist<br />(2) Bohm moved way beyond “old-style determinism” into other (more original and speculative) philosophical and scientific directions.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="77a8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that is true.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="80bf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, to get these points across again, let’s quote Wikipedia.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d0a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Wiki <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Among+his+many+contributions+to+physics+is+his+causal+and+deterministic+interpretation+of+quantum+theory+known+as+De+Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm+theory.%22&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=LhGcZdDZJYHv0PEP75GQyAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwfPt87abh1P06dqc9RwUO8NOu6rUOs&ved=0ahUKEwjQqLapis6DAxWBNzQIHe8IBLkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Among+his+many+contributions+to+physics+is+his+causal+and+deterministic+interpretation+of+quantum+theory+known+as+De+Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm+theory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Io0BIkFtb25nIGhpcyBtYW55IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbnMgdG8gcGh5c2ljcyBpcyBoaXMgY2F1c2FsIGFuZCBkZXRlcm1pbmlzdGljIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIHF1YW50dW0gdGhlb3J5IGtub3duIGFzIERlIEJyb2dsaWXigJNCb2htIHRoZW9yeS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Among+his+many+contributions+to+physics+is+his+causal+and+deterministic+interpretation+of+quantum+theory+known+as+De+Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm+theory.%22&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=LhGcZdDZJYHv0PEP75GQyAs&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwfPt87abh1P06dqc9RwUO8NOu6rUOs&ved=0ahUKEwjQqLapis6DAxWBNzQIHe8IBLkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Among+his+many+contributions+to+physics+is+his+causal+and+deterministic+interpretation+of+quantum+theory+known+as+De+Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm+theory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Io0BIkFtb25nIGhpcyBtYW55IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbnMgdG8gcGh5c2ljcyBpcyBoaXMgY2F1c2FsIGFuZCBkZXRlcm1pbmlzdGljIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIHF1YW50dW0gdGhlb3J5IGtub3duIGFzIERlIEJyb2dsaWXigJNCb2htIHRoZW9yeS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">firstly states</a> that Bohm was a determinist:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="32a7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Among his many contributions to physics is his causal and deterministic interpretation of quantum theory known as De Broglie–Bohm theory.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e1b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Wiki too stresses the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Bohm-wasn’t-an-old-style-determinist</em> idea when it <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Bohm%27s+aim+was+not+to+set+out+a+deterministic%2C+mechanical+viewpoint+but+to+show+that+it+was+possible+to+attribute+properties+to+an+underlying+reality%2C+in+contrast+to+the+conventional+approach.%22&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=cxGcZYzeIKSL0PEPuPCHoA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwfg5LZWEczkc5Gln0M1KnpxPhK76FZ&ved=0ahUKEwjM46TKis6DAxWkBTQIHTj4AdQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Bohm%27s+aim+was+not+to+set+out+a+deterministic%2C+mechanical+viewpoint+but+to+show+that+it+was+possible+to+attribute+properties+to+an+underlying+reality%2C+in+contrast+to+the+conventional+approach.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsIBIkJvaG0ncyBhaW0gd2FzIG5vdCB0byBzZXQgb3V0IGEgZGV0ZXJtaW5pc3RpYywgbWVjaGFuaWNhbCB2aWV3cG9pbnQgYnV0IHRvIHNob3cgdGhhdCBpdCB3YXMgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gYXR0cmlidXRlIHByb3BlcnRpZXMgdG8gYW4gdW5kZXJseWluZyByZWFsaXR5LCBpbiBjb250cmFzdCB0byB0aGUgY29udmVudGlvbmFsIGFwcHJvYWNoLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Bohm%27s+aim+was+not+to+set+out+a+deterministic%2C+mechanical+viewpoint+but+to+show+that+it+was+possible+to+attribute+properties+to+an+underlying+reality%2C+in+contrast+to+the+conventional+approach.%22&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=cxGcZYzeIKSL0PEPuPCHoA0&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwfg5LZWEczkc5Gln0M1KnpxPhK76FZ&ved=0ahUKEwjM46TKis6DAxWkBTQIHTj4AdQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Bohm%27s+aim+was+not+to+set+out+a+deterministic%2C+mechanical+viewpoint+but+to+show+that+it+was+possible+to+attribute+properties+to+an+underlying+reality%2C+in+contrast+to+the+conventional+approach.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsIBIkJvaG0ncyBhaW0gd2FzIG5vdCB0byBzZXQgb3V0IGEgZGV0ZXJtaW5pc3RpYywgbWVjaGFuaWNhbCB2aWV3cG9pbnQgYnV0IHRvIHNob3cgdGhhdCBpdCB3YXMgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gYXR0cmlidXRlIHByb3BlcnRpZXMgdG8gYW4gdW5kZXJseWluZyByZWFsaXR5LCBpbiBjb250cmFzdCB0byB0aGUgY29udmVudGlvbmFsIGFwcHJvYWNoLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continues with these words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f75e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bohm’s aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint, but to show that it was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional approach.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ed9d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although this isn’t a place to go into detail, Bohm clearly wasn’t against determinism. However, he did offer us his very own brand of determinism. That is, in Bohm’s new (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">cosmic reductionism, </em>we don’t have<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.whyarewehere.tv/about-science/reductionism/" href="https://www.whyarewehere.tv/about-science/reductionism/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the reduction of everything to hard particles”</a> (or to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">whatever</em>). Instead, we have a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reduction</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">of everything</em> to a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">holistic</em></a> “underlying [cosmic] reality”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b71a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, paradoxically, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bohmian+holism&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=NxKcZbKOKsqzhbIPvpW_oAw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwgR5i2uLfqPalYnEFBic-0D5X4_IwO&ved=0ahUKEwjyhemni86DAxXKWUEAHb7KD8QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bohmian+holism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig5Cb2htaWFuIGhvbGlzbTIFECEYoAFIwQhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgB-wGgAfsBqgEDMi0xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bohmian+holism&sca_esv=596572399&source=hp&ei=NxKcZbKOKsqzhbIPvpW_oAw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZwgR5i2uLfqPalYnEFBic-0D5X4_IwO&ved=0ahUKEwjyhemni86DAxXKWUEAHb7KD8QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bohmian+holism&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig5Cb2htaWFuIGhvbGlzbTIFECEYoAFIwQhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgB-wGgAfsBqgEDMi0xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bohmian holism</a> can itself be seen as a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">kind of reductionism</em>. So it’s worth saying here (i.e., for explanatory purposes) that Bohm’s spiritual reductionism is much like the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Donald Hoffman</a>’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>reduction of literally everything down to what he calls <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=596768218&source=hp&ei=JtOcZabrE6nP0PEPrZWXyAw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZzhNozBzlYMSzzs2O6cYDDDQ4yxSqwz&ved=0ahUKEwimlo6nw8-DAxWpJzQIHa3KBckQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiNEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iYRFAAWJk7cAB4AJABAJgBnQKgAdcfqgEEMi0xOLgBA8gBAPgBAfgBAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=596768218&source=hp&ei=JtOcZabrE6nP0PEPrZWXyAw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZzhNozBzlYMSzzs2O6cYDDDQ4yxSqwz&ved=0ahUKEwimlo6nw8-DAxWpJzQIHa3KBckQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiNEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iYRFAAWJk7cAB4AJABAJgBnQKgAdcfqgEEMi0xOLgBA8gBAPgBAfgBAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“conscious agents”</a> — or to the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">cosmic consciousness</em> of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the One”</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> note 1, </strong>and my<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/what-is-a-conscious-agent-donald-hoffman-please-tell-me-ca0b81d0d026" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/what-is-a-conscious-agent-donald-hoffman-please-tell-me-ca0b81d0d026" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>What Is a ‘Conscious Agent’? Donald Hoffman, Please Tell Me’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fef9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyway, what’s important here (at least in the context of this essay) is that there seems to be a clash between Bohm’s determinism and scientific realism, and the “spiritual” and (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness-first</em> aspects of his work which many of his fans focus upon.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="806e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">David Bohm as Mystic</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9eda"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="724" data-image-id="1*Wy26O41OgX83kM1CV8wPsA.png" data-width="1356" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Wy26O41OgX83kM1CV8wPsA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ab59"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are elements of both Bohm’s science and his philosophy which spiritual idealists, New Agers and spiritual philosophers can — and have — taken hold of. Indeed, there are many reasons to recruit Bohm into the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual camp</em>. (Bohm’s collaboration with the “spiritual figure” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Jiddu Krishnamurti">Jiddu Krishnamurti</a> is just one single example.) However, this isn’t also to say that Bohm’s take on things is identical to anything advanced by any of the aforementioned individuals.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c2b3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, hardly any of these spiritual fans of Bohm are actual scientists. What’s more, it’s clear that they tend to know very little physics. Indeed, the physics they do know is used almost exclusively to advance their spiritual views.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2baa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that ideas and passages within Bohm’s writings can indeed be stressed by spiritual idealists, spiritual philosophers and New Agers. Yet, in terms of this essay at least, Bohm was still a determinist, and he was still a scientific realist. This can be seen as meaning that the aforementioned commentators are cherry picking positions from Bohm. Alternatively, perhaps they can argue that there’s some kind of harmony between Bohm’s determinism/realism, and his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Bohm%27s+spiritual+ideas%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=fvaYZcXSF4PBhbIPu--3uAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkEjt7W0msfeWRe04QEX9EmykfhCcGY&ved=0ahUKEwjFici5lMiDAxWDYEEAHbv3DWcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Bohm%27s+spiritual+ideas%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgiQm9obSdzIHNwaXJpdHVhbCBpZGVhcyIyBRAhGKABSPQIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWCgAWCqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Bohm%27s+spiritual+ideas%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=fvaYZcXSF4PBhbIPu--3uAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkEjt7W0msfeWRe04QEX9EmykfhCcGY&ved=0ahUKEwjFici5lMiDAxWDYEEAHbv3DWcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Bohm%27s+spiritual+ideas%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhgiQm9obSdzIHNwaXJpdHVhbCBpZGVhcyIyBRAhGKABSPQIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAWCgAWCqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spiritual ideas”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ee6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s also worth<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>stating here then when Bohm did discuss these extra-scientific (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spiritual</em>) elements, he did so in a prose style that’s very hard to understand. (Perhaps I should simply say that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">I personally</em> find it very hard to understand.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fb08"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There may be a very good and convincing reason for this opacity in Bohm’s prose.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d510"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, Bohm once stated <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.de/books/about/Thought_as_a_System.html?id=9Q-3WN0LajsC&redir_esc=y" href="https://books.google.de/books/about/Thought_as_a_System.html?id=9Q-3WN0LajsC&redir_esc=y" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="157e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[M]<i>etaphysics is an expression of a world view </i>[] <i>thus to be regarded as an art form, resembling poetry in some ways and mathematics in others, rather than as an attempt to say something true about reality as a whole.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="df83"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So can’t we immediately respond by stating the following? -</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="bfca"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">Bohm’s metaphysics, and perhaps even parts of his physics, are</span> an expression of a world view and thus an art form<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">, </span>resembling poetry <span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">[or a spiritual religion]</span> in some ways and mathematics in others.</span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7fec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More generally:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="4090"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">Bohm’s metaphysics, and perhaps even parts of his physics, are </span>not true about reality as a whole.</span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c0c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relevantly, all this stuff about (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">artistic metaphysics</em> seems to work in favour of Bohm being a “mystic”. However, like<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Schrödinger </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[see <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong>]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">, Bohm made a point of separating and distinguishing his actual physics from his philosophical and spiritual views. So, in simple terms, you won’t find much philosophy or spirituality in Bohm’s early (technical) papers on physics. However, you will find such things in the books which Bohm wrote<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>in his later years (i.e.,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?sca_esv=596319923&q=Quantum+Theory+David+Bohm&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MLRMqzJQ4tFP1zesTCk3SLYortSSyk620k_Kz8_WTywtycgvsgKxixXy83IqF7FKBpYm5pWU5iqEZKTmF1UquCSWZaYoOOVn5AIAq0EVZFMAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihuae52cqDAxUdlYkEHaWyAnkQ9OUBegQIExAL&biw=1530&bih=739&dpr=1.25" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?sca_esv=596319923&q=Quantum+Theory+David+Bohm&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MLRMqzJQ4tFP1zesTCk3SLYortSSyk620k_Kz8_WTywtycgvsgKxixXy83IqF7FKBpYm5pWU5iqEZKTmF1UquCSWZaYoOOVn5AIAq0EVZFMAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihuae52cqDAxUdlYkEHaWyAnkQ9OUBegQIExAL&biw=1530&bih=739&dpr=1.25" rel="noopener" target="_blank">from 1976 onward</a>).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8dfb" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bohmian Holism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d658"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="623" data-image-id="1*0mBHosfBZATSvFhoIjJf6A.png" data-width="494" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*0mBHosfBZATSvFhoIjJf6A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1395"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More particularly, New Agers, idealists and spiritual philosophers focus (or even fixate) on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+holism&sca_esv=596150050&ei=L_KYZf7bHeWehbIP1ZGtmAs&ved=0ahUKEwi-r9SrkMiDAxVlT0EAHdVIC7MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+holism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE0RhdmlkIEJvaG0ncyBob2xpc20yCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESPwUUIsHWO8OcAF4AZABAJgBZKAB5gOqAQM1LjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYCBgeGA3CAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+holism&sca_esv=596150050&ei=L_KYZf7bHeWehbIP1ZGtmAs&ved=0ahUKEwi-r9SrkMiDAxVlT0EAHdVIC7MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+holism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE0RhdmlkIEJvaG0ncyBob2xpc20yCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESPwUUIsHWO8OcAF4AZABAJgBZKAB5gOqAQM1LjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYCBgeGA3CAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGAoYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bohm’s holism</a>, as well as his parallel stress on non-locality. (It’s worth noting that Bohm’s non-locality goes way beyond <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" rel="noopener" target="_blank">quantum non-locality</a>.) Yet, in a sense, these positions seem to clash with Bohm’s scientific realism and determinism. Perhaps, more accurately, they may not clash with anything Bohm himself actually held in his philosophy and his science. However, they most certainly do clash with what many New Agers, spiritual philosophers, etc. believe. And that fact partly explains why such people cherry pick Bohm’s positions and statements, and artfully ignore his realism, determinism, and his strong belief in scientific “objectivity” (i.e., against “subjectivism”).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6e05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of holism, take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+world+is+assumed+to+be+constituted+of+a+set+of+separately+existent%2C+indivisible%2C+and+unchangeable+%27elementary+particles%27%2C+which+are+the+fundamental+%27building+blocks%27+of+the+entire+universe%C2%A0%E2%80%A6+there+seems+to+be+an+unshakable+faith+among+physicists+that+either+such+particles%2C+or+some+other+kind+yet+to+be+discovered%2C+will+eventually+make+possible+a+complete+and+coherent+explanation+of+everything%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=evKYZZDBI8HOhbIPw7qv6AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkAigFgM5rZpInqheO_g-lmGaxdafuB&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5rvPkMiDAxVBZ0EAHUPdC00Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+world+is+assumed+to+be+constituted+of+a+set+of+separately+existent%2C+indivisible%2C+and+unchangeable+%27elementary+particles%27%2C+which+are+the+fundamental+%27building+blocks%27+of+the+entire+universe%C2%A0%E2%80%A6+there+seems+to+be+an+unshakable+faith+among+physicists+that+either+such+particles%2C+or+some+other+kind+yet+to+be+discovered%2C+will+eventually+make+possible+a+complete+and+coherent+explanation+of+everything%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+world+is+assumed+to+be+constituted+of+a+set+of+separately+existent%2C+indivisible%2C+and+unchangeable+%27elementary+particles%27%2C+which+are+the+fundamental+%27building+blocks%27+of+the+entire+universe%C2%A0%E2%80%A6+there+seems+to+be+an+unshakable+faith+among+physicists+that+either+such+particles%2C+or+some+other+kind+yet+to+be+discovered%2C+will+eventually+make+possible+a+complete+and+coherent+explanation+of+everything%22&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=evKYZZDBI8HOhbIPw7qv6AQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkAigFgM5rZpInqheO_g-lmGaxdafuB&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5rvPkMiDAxVBZ0EAHUPdC00Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+world+is+assumed+to+be+constituted+of+a+set+of+separately+existent%2C+indivisible%2C+and+unchangeable+%27elementary+particles%27%2C+which+are+the+fundamental+%27building+blocks%27+of+the+entire+universe%C2%A0%E2%80%A6+there+seems+to+be+an+unshakable+faith+among+physicists+that+either+such+particles%2C+or+some+other+kind+yet+to+be+discovered%2C+will+eventually+make+possible+a+complete+and+coherent+explanation+of+everything%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this passage</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>from Bohm’s book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Wholeness and the Implicate Order</em></a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d0d1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[T]<i>he world is assumed </i>[by most physicists?]<i> to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible, and unchangeable ‘elementary particles’, which are the fundamental ‘building blocks’ of the entire universe </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c7f0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And here’s Bohm <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order/2GZuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+new+form+of+insight+can+perhaps+best+be+called+Undivided+Wholeness+in+Flowing+Movement.+This+view+implies+that+flow+is+in+some+sense+prior+to+that+of+the+%27things%27+that+can+be+seen+to+form+and+dissolve+in+this%C2%A0flow.%22&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order/2GZuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+new+form+of+insight+can+perhaps+best+be+called+Undivided+Wholeness+in+Flowing+Movement.+This+view+implies+that+flow+is+in+some+sense+prior+to+that+of+the+%27things%27+that+can+be+seen+to+form+and+dissolve+in+this%C2%A0flow.%22&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writing in 1980</a> about his very own alternative:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d93a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is in some sense prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc34"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Recall Bohm’s earlier words: “[M]etaphysics is an expression of a world view [] thus to be regarded as an art form, resembling poetry in some ways [].]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bd57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although these aspects of Bohm’s philosophy and science won’t be discussed in this essay, it’s worth noting that nothing in the first passage above (i.e., not the passage about the “Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement”) needs to be tied to anything spiritual, supernatural, “transcendent” and/or “mystical”. In fact, most physicists accept <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" rel="noopener" target="_blank">non-locality</a>, the importance of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">fields</a>, etc. without feeling the need to endorse all the many additional spiritual ideas and commitments — all of which go way, way beyond the physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e75d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms specifically of the philosophical position of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">relationalism</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2eb9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bohm’s idea that that phenomena aren’t reducible to fundamental particles (or even to single determinate and circumscribed states or events) isn’t that different to the philosophical <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics" rel="noopener" target="_blank">relationalism</a> of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Carlo Rovelli</a> or the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/#OntiStruRealOSR" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/#OntiStruRealOSR" rel="noopener" target="_blank">ontic structural realism</a> of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=James+Ladyman&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=dPWYZealJ5avhbIPwd-3-As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkDhLwT5jbgbIhnwKvnLv3vsTajwtBD&ved=0ahUKEwjmr-y6k8iDAxWWV0EAHcHvDb8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=James+Ladyman&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig1KYW1lcyBMYWR5bWFuMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkjVC1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFSoAFSqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=James+Ladyman&sca_esv=596150050&source=hp&ei=dPWYZealJ5avhbIPwd-3-As&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZkDhLwT5jbgbIhnwKvnLv3vsTajwtBD&ved=0ahUKEwjmr-y6k8iDAxWWV0EAHcHvDb8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=James+Ladyman&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig1KYW1lcyBMYWR5bWFuMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkjVC1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFSoAFSqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Ladyman</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3.</strong>]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="04a5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, let’s now move onto Bohm’s determinism and his rejection of what many physicists have called “subjectivism”. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 4</strong>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e704" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">David Bohm’s Determinism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5c51"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="433" data-image-id="1*b2wI7ros2dJ9WrPBoCb17w.png" data-width="870" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*b2wI7ros2dJ9WrPBoCb17w.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">John Bell</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Northern Irish physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Stewart Bell</a> gave a historically interesting and clear account of David Bohm’s determinism <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_on_the_Foundations_of_Quantu/qou0iiLPjyoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Bell+-+But+in+1952+I+saw+the+impossible+done.+It+was+by+David+Bohm.+Bohm+showed+explicitly+how+parameters+could+indeed+be+introduced,+into+nonrelativistic+wave+mechanics,+with+the+help+of+which+the+indeterministic+description+could+be+transformed+into+a+deterministic+one.&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_on_the_Foundations_of_Quantu/qou0iiLPjyoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Bell+-+But+in+1952+I+saw+the+impossible+done.+It+was+by+David+Bohm.+Bohm+showed+explicitly+how+parameters+could+indeed+be+introduced,+into+nonrelativistic+wave+mechanics,+with+the+help+of+which+the+indeterministic+description+could+be+transformed+into+a+deterministic+one.&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">in the following</a> passage:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="098f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>n 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="db0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Elsewhere, Bell <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/speakable-and-unspeakable-in-quantum-mechanics/beables-for-quantum-field-theory/C99F91E12460652F29018A3918F8F96C" href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/speakable-and-unspeakable-in-quantum-mechanics/beables-for-quantum-field-theory/C99F91E12460652F29018A3918F8F96C" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b94d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bohm’s 1952 papers on quantum mechanics were for me a revelation. The elimination of indeterminism was very striking.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ddf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, I now need to quote Bohm himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb84"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Oddly, it’s hard to find any explicit passages on this subject in Bohm’s own works. Instead, it seems that it was nearly all said with his early mathematics. However, he did write the following words<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(as found in his paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166" href="https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’</a> Variables’) in 1952:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4b8f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is based on an assumption having very far-reaching implications, ~i.e., that the physical state of an individual system is completely specified by a wave function that determines only the probabilities of actual results that can be obtained in a statistical ensemble of similar experiments. This assumption has been the object of severe criticisms, notably on the part of Einstein, who has always believed that, even at the quantum level, there must exist precisely definable elements or dynamical variables determining (as in classical physics) the actual behavior of each individual system, and not merely its probable behavior. Since these elements or variables are not now included in the quantum theory and have not yet been detected experimentally, Einstein has always regarded the present form of the quantum theory as incomplete, although he admits its internal consistency.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a41d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As is almost too obvious to state: spiritual idealists, New Agers and spiritual philosophers tend to stress <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">indeterminism</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=New+Age+spirituality+and+%22determinism%22&sca_esv=596226834&ei=14WZZeKgO_HAhbIPkP6RoA4&ved=0ahUKEwii6KqUncmDAxVxYEEAHRB_BOQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=New+Age+spirituality+and+%22determinism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJk5ldyBBZ2Ugc3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5IGFuZCAiZGV0ZXJtaW5pc20iMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEjOEFCjBlj2CHABeACQAQCYAZcBoAHfAaoBAzEuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLAD4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=New+Age+spirituality+and+%22determinism%22&sca_esv=596226834&ei=14WZZeKgO_HAhbIPkP6RoA4&ved=0ahUKEwii6KqUncmDAxVxYEEAHRB_BOQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=New+Age+spirituality+and+%22determinism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJk5ldyBBZ2Ugc3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5IGFuZCAiZGV0ZXJtaW5pc20iMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEjOEFCjBlj2CHABeACQAQCYAZcBoAHfAaoBAzEuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLAD4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> Indeed, they stress indeterminism not only at the quantum level, but at the “classical” level too. Yet here is Bohm — at least according to Bell — not only offering an alternative to indeterminism at the quantum level, but actually attempting to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eliminate</em> it…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f31b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Talk about <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+Baron+-+%22the+clockwork+universe%22&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=qE2aZZysDt-kptQP5_mz6Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpbuGocgKiUL_uSAYCv1JTU29Y6lZXq&ved=0ahUKEwicoNHb28qDAxVfkokEHef8DI0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gerald+Baron+-+%22the+clockwork+universe%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+Baron+-+%22the+clockwork+universe%22&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=qE2aZZysDt-kptQP5_mz6Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpbuGocgKiUL_uSAYCv1JTU29Y6lZXq&ved=0ahUKEwicoNHb28qDAxVfkokEHef8DI0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gerald+Baron+-+%22the+clockwork+universe%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the clockwork universe”</a> so often criticised by New Agers and spiritual philosophers.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 5</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4200"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s Bohm (if partly via Bell) on determinism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9db0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about Bohm’s stance against (as it’s often been called) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Copenhagen+interpretation+and+subjectivism&sca_esv=596226834&ei=hYaZZfPTOobJhbIPz-aLsAg&ved=0ahUKEwizqqbnncmDAxWGZEEAHU_zAoYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Copenhagen+interpretation+and+subjectivism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKkNvcGVuaGFnZW4gaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gYW5kIHN1YmplY3RpdmlzbTIIEAAYiQUYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJk3UP8LWJcvcAJ4AZABAJgBtwGgAeIOqgEEMTQuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgQQIRgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Copenhagen+interpretation+and+subjectivism&sca_esv=596226834&ei=hYaZZfPTOobJhbIPz-aLsAg&ved=0ahUKEwizqqbnncmDAxWGZEEAHU_zAoYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Copenhagen+interpretation+and+subjectivism&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKkNvcGVuaGFnZW4gaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gYW5kIHN1YmplY3RpdmlzbTIIEAAYiQUYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJk3UP8LWJcvcAJ4AZABAJgBtwGgAeIOqgEEMTQuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgQQIRgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“Copenhagenist subjectivism”</a>?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6798" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">The Observer and Scientific Subjectivism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="258a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="449" data-image-id="1*BY8qoAJ9oFetzmCwzd_ZAw.png" data-width="682" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*BY8qoAJ9oFetzmCwzd_ZAw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="fbc2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">John Bell <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_On_The_Foundations_Of_Quantu/pufUCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22More+importantly,+in+my+opinion,+the+subjectivity+of+the+orthodox+version,+the+necessary+reference+to+the+%27observer,%27+could+be+eliminated.%22&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_On_The_Foundations_Of_Quantu/pufUCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22More+importantly,+in+my+opinion,+the+subjectivity+of+the+orthodox+version,+the+necessary+reference+to+the+%27observer,%27+could+be+eliminated.%22&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continue</a>d:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7b97"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0d88"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In more detail, Bell <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_on_the_Foundations_of_Quantu/qou0iiLPjyoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22But+more+important,+it+seemed+to+me,+was+the+elimination+of+any+need+for+a+vague+division+of+the+world+into+%27system%27+on+the+one+hand,+and+%27apparatus%27+or+%27observer%27+on+the%C2%A0other.%22&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/John_S_Bell_on_the_Foundations_of_Quantu/qou0iiLPjyoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22But+more+important,+it+seemed+to+me,+was+the+elimination+of+any+need+for+a+vague+division+of+the+world+into+%27system%27+on+the+one+hand,+and+%27apparatus%27+or+%27observer%27+on+the%C2%A0other.%22&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9dd4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But more important, it seemed to me, was the elimination of any need for a vague division of the world into ‘system’ on the one hand, and ‘apparatus’ or ‘observer’ on the other."</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e29"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s precisely the “observer” which New Agers, spiritual idealists and spiritual philosophers have stressed. Yet Bohm attempted to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eliminate </em>the need to even mention the observer.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2178"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, and as before with determinism, I now need to quote Bohm himself on realism. So here’s a passage from a letter to Karl Popper, which goes <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+certainly+think+that+a+realistic+interpretation+of+physics+is+essential.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D.+However%2C+I+feel+that+you+have+not+properly+understood+my+own+point+of+view%2C+which+is+much+less+different+from+yours+than+is+implied+in+your+book.+Firstly+I+am+not+wedded+to+determinism.+It+is+true+that+I+first+used+a+determinist+version+of+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+quantum+theory.+But+later%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+a+paper+was+written%2C7+in+which+we+assumed+that+the+movement+of+the+particle+was+a+stochastic+process.+Clearly+that+is+not+determinism.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+The+key+question+at+issue+is+therefore+not+that+of+determinism+vs.+indeterminism.+I+personally+do+not+feel+addicted+to+determinism%2C+but+I+am+ready+to+consider+deterministic+proposals%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+if+they+offer+some+useful+insights.%22&sca_esv=596768218&source=hp&ei=NAOdZaPYHd6T0PEP-Nu_qAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ0RRDLPKbuqQdJoTadxmgZ4HMVQfY7z&ved=0ahUKEwijwp6R8c-DAxXeCTQIHfjtD5UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+certainly+think+that+a+realistic+interpretation+of+physics+is+essential.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D.+However%2C+I+feel+that+you+have+not+properly+understood+my+own+point+of+view%2C+which+is+much+less+different+from+yours+than+is+implied+in+your+book.+Firstly+I+am+not+wedded+to+determinism.+It+is+true+that+I+first+used+a+determinist+version+of+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+quantum+theory.+But+later%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+a+paper+was+written%2C7+in+which+we+assumed+that+the+movement+of+the+particle+was+a+stochastic+process.+Clearly+that+is+not+determinism.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+The+key+question+at+issue+is+therefore+not+that+of+determinism+vs.+indeterminism.+I+personally+do+not+feel+addicted+to+determinism%2C+but+I+am+ready+to+consider+deterministic+proposals%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+if+they+offer+some+useful+insights.%22&gs_lp=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-KApl0gaWYgdGhleSBvZmZlciBzb21lIHVzZWZ1bCBpbnNpZ2h0cy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+certainly+think+that+a+realistic+interpretation+of+physics+is+essential.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D.+However%2C+I+feel+that+you+have+not+properly+understood+my+own+point+of+view%2C+which+is+much+less+different+from+yours+than+is+implied+in+your+book.+Firstly+I+am+not+wedded+to+determinism.+It+is+true+that+I+first+used+a+determinist+version+of+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+quantum+theory.+But+later%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+a+paper+was+written%2C7+in+which+we+assumed+that+the+movement+of+the+particle+was+a+stochastic+process.+Clearly+that+is+not+determinism.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+The+key+question+at+issue+is+therefore+not+that+of+determinism+vs.+indeterminism.+I+personally+do+not+feel+addicted+to+determinism%2C+but+I+am+ready+to+consider+deterministic+proposals%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+if+they+offer+some+useful+insights.%22&sca_esv=596768218&source=hp&ei=NAOdZaPYHd6T0PEP-Nu_qAk&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ0RRDLPKbuqQdJoTadxmgZ4HMVQfY7z&ved=0ahUKEwijwp6R8c-DAxXeCTQIHfjtD5UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+certainly+think+that+a+realistic+interpretation+of+physics+is+essential.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D.+However%2C+I+feel+that+you+have+not+properly+understood+my+own+point+of+view%2C+which+is+much+less+different+from+yours+than+is+implied+in+your+book.+Firstly+I+am+not+wedded+to+determinism.+It+is+true+that+I+first+used+a+determinist+version+of+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+quantum+theory.+But+later%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+a+paper+was+written%2C7+in+which+we+assumed+that+the+movement+of+the+particle+was+a+stochastic+process.+Clearly+that+is+not+determinism.+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+The+key+question+at+issue+is+therefore+not+that+of+determinism+vs.+indeterminism.+I+personally+do+not+feel+addicted+to+determinism%2C+but+I+am+ready+to+consider+deterministic+proposals%2C+%5B%E2%80%A6%5D+if+they+offer+some+useful+insights.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItkFIkkgY2VydGFpbmx5IHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgYSByZWFsaXN0aWMgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gb2YgcGh5c2ljcyBpcyBlc3NlbnRpYWwuIFvigKZdLiBIb3dldmVyLCBJIGZlZWwgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZSBub3QgcHJvcGVybHkgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBteSBvd24gcG9pbnQgb2Ygdmlldywgd2hpY2ggaXMgbXVjaCBsZXNzIGRpZmZlcmVudCBmcm9tIHlvdXJzIHRoYW4gaXMgaW1wbGllZCBpbiB5b3VyIGJvb2suIEZpcnN0bHkgSSBhbSBub3Qgd2VkZGVkIHRvIGRldGVybWluaXNtLiBJdCBpcyB0cnVlIHRoYXQgSSBmaXJzdCB1c2VkIGEgZGV0ZXJtaW5pc3QgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBb4oCmXSBxdWFudHVtIHRoZW9yeS4gQnV0IGxhdGVyLCBb4oCmXSBhIHBhcGVyIHdhcyB3cml0dGVuLDcgaW4gd2hpY2ggd2UgYXNzdW1lZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBtb3ZlbWVudCBvZiB0aGUgcGFydGljbGUgd2FzIGEgc3RvY2hhc3RpYyBwcm9jZXNzLiBDbGVhcmx5IHRoYXQgaXMgbm90IGRldGVybWluaXNtLiBb4oCmXSBUaGUga2V5IHF1ZXN0aW9uIGF0IGlzc3VlIGlzIHRoZXJlZm9yZSBub3QgdGhhdCBvZiBkZXRlcm1pbmlzbSB2cy4gaW5kZXRlcm1pbmlzbS4gSSBwZXJzb25hbGx5IGRvIG5vdCBmZWVsIGFkZGljdGVkIHRvIGRldGVybWluaXNtLCBidXQgSSBhbSByZWFkeSB0byBjb25zaWRlciBkZXRlcm1pbmlzdGljIHByb3Bvc2FscywgW-KApl0gaWYgdGhleSBvZmZlciBzb21lIHVzZWZ1bCBpbnNpZ2h0cy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">as follow</a>s:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="361a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I certainly think that a realistic interpretation of physics is essential. </i>[…]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8383"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That sentence just quoted, Bohm does then go on to play down (if only a little) his determinism:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3820"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Firstly I am not wedded to determinism. It is true that I first used a determinist version of </i>[…]<i> quantum theory. But later </i>[…]<i> a paper was written in which we assumed that the movement of the particle was a stochastic process. Clearly that is not determinism.</i> […] <i>The key question at issue is therefore not that of determinism vs. indeterminism</i> [it’s one of realism vs. subjectivism]<i>. I personally do not feel addicted to determinism, but I am ready to consider deterministic proposals </i>[…]<i> if they offer some useful insights.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a06"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This isn’t a case of Bohm rejecting determinism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b921"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, it’s a case of Bohm (as stated earlier) going beyond<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> old-style determinism</em>, but also accepting determinism if it “offer[s] some useful insights”. Again, this isn’t a case of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">determinism vs indeterminism. </em>It’s a case of<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> determinisms-in-the-plural vs One Determinism.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="352b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, it must be admitted that Bell’s earlier way of putting things can be read as working on behalf of some of the ideas of New Agers, spiritual philosophers and spiritual idealists. That’s because it seems to be an argument for the joint importance of “observer” and “system” — or even the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">fusion</em> of observer and system.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="53e1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, that wasn’t what Bell was getting at.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="564b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, Bell was stressing that the elimination of the observer was possible (i.e., at least <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in principle</em>). Bell wasn’t arguing that the observer (or, as idealists put it, “consciousness”) and the (studied) system have a joint importance - let alone that they must be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">fused</em>. In other words, Bohm was a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Scientific_realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Scientific_realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">realist</a> (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+was+a+realist&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=m1CaZd6rJd6J9u8P97qCuAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpeqy68alY8nZIBrDjuYf0rHyi2WcFh&ved=0ahUKEwie5enD3sqDAxXehP0HHXedAIcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+was+a+realist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhEYXZpZCBCb2htIHdhcyBhIHJlYWxpc3QyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIEECEYFUjiK1AAWLImcAB4AJABAJgBXaAB3w2qAQIyNLgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEC4YgATCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgQQABgDwgIFEAAYgATCAggQLhiABBjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgcQIRgKGKAB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+was+a+realist&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=m1CaZd6rJd6J9u8P97qCuAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpeqy68alY8nZIBrDjuYf0rHyi2WcFh&ved=0ahUKEwie5enD3sqDAxXehP0HHXedAIcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+was+a+realist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhEYXZpZCBCb2htIHdhcyBhIHJlYWxpc3QyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIEECEYFUjiK1AAWLImcAB4AJABAJgBXaAB3w2qAQIyNLgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEC4YgATCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgQQABgDwgIFEAAYgATCAggQLhiABBjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgcQIRgKGKAB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>) who believed that the observer could be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eliminated</em> (or factored out) completely. Thus, the real quantum world could — at least in principle — be described (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in itself</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0275"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Consequently, this is a position that’s the exact antithesis of that of spiritual idealists, New Agers, and spiritual philosophers , all of whom stress the observer — or at least the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness</em> of the observer.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, Bohm was a scientific realist, not an idealist. That said, it’s of course the case that in other areas Bohm did indeed stress consciousness. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+on+consciousness.&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=3FCaZZSyJb3n7_UPsfqvwAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpe7FedQ9woQXmIHgA-UCuUyZUTgIj9&ved=0ahUKEwiUkOni3sqDAxW987sIHTH9CxgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+on+consciousness.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxEYXZpZCBCb2htIG9uIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MuMgYQABgIGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSPxCUABYtjxwAHgAkAEAmAFyoAGsB6oBBDExLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQIRigAcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIGEAAYBxgewgIEEAAYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm+on+consciousness.&sca_esv=596319923&source=hp&ei=3FCaZZSyJb3n7_UPsfqvwAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZpe7FedQ9woQXmIHgA-UCuUyZUTgIj9&ved=0ahUKEwiUkOni3sqDAxW987sIHTH9CxgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm+on+consciousness.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxEYXZpZCBCb2htIG9uIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MuMgYQABgIGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSPxCUABYtjxwAHgAkAEAmAFyoAGsB6oBBDExLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQIRigAcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIGEAAYBxgewgIEEAAYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f82c" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Einstein, Schrödinger and Bell on Determinism and Subjectivism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ced6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="611" data-image-id="1*br9F9zveNUUturb7DiWAlw.png" data-width="856" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*br9F9zveNUUturb7DiWAlw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="31dc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Albert Einstein is another physicist who’s often conscripted into the spiritual idealism, New Age and spiritual philosophy camps. Yet it’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>well known that Einstein had problems with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Copenhagen interpretation</a>, which is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">also</em> often conscripted into the aforementioned camps!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="71d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Specifically, Einstein’s very own rejection of indeterminism and embrace of scientific realism is relevant here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="19fb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In 1949, Einstein wrote<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+am%2C+in+fact%2C+rather+firmly+convinced+that+the+essentially+statistical+character+of+contemporary+quantum+theory+is+solely+to+be+ascribed+to+the+fact+that+this+%28theory%29+operates+with+an+incomplete+description+of+physical+systems%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+%5BIn%5D+a+complete+physical+description%2C+the+statistical+quantum+theory+would%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+take+an+approximately+analogous+position+to+the+statistical+mechanics+within+the+framework+of+classical+mechanics%C2%A0.%C2%A0..%22&sca_esv=595978342&source=hp&ei=LCWYZdLfNLqOxc8PyNeZyAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZgzPCnm1KPpszmec7Nnb4KnHnIX6MMk&ved=0ahUKEwjSpf_pzMaDAxU6R_EDHchrBhkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+am%2C+in+fact%2C+rather+firmly+convinced+that+the+essentially+statistical+character+of+contemporary+quantum+theory+is+solely+to+be+ascribed+to+the+fact+that+this+%28theory%29+operates+with+an+incomplete+description+of+physical+systems%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+%5BIn%5D+a+complete+physical+description%2C+the+statistical+quantum+theory+would%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+take+an+approximately+analogous+position+to+the+statistical+mechanics+within+the+framework+of+classical+mechanics%C2%A0.%C2%A0..%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+am%2C+in+fact%2C+rather+firmly+convinced+that+the+essentially+statistical+character+of+contemporary+quantum+theory+is+solely+to+be+ascribed+to+the+fact+that+this+%28theory%29+operates+with+an+incomplete+description+of+physical+systems%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+%5BIn%5D+a+complete+physical+description%2C+the+statistical+quantum+theory+would%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+take+an+approximately+analogous+position+to+the+statistical+mechanics+within+the+framework+of+classical+mechanics%C2%A0.%C2%A0..%22&sca_esv=595978342&source=hp&ei=LCWYZdLfNLqOxc8PyNeZyAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZgzPCnm1KPpszmec7Nnb4KnHnIX6MMk&ved=0ahUKEwjSpf_pzMaDAxU6R_EDHchrBhkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+am%2C+in+fact%2C+rather+firmly+convinced+that+the+essentially+statistical+character+of+contemporary+quantum+theory+is+solely+to+be+ascribed+to+the+fact+that+this+%28theory%29+operates+with+an+incomplete+description+of+physical+systems%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+%5BIn%5D+a+complete+physical+description%2C+the+statistical+quantum+theory+would%C2%A0.%C2%A0.%C2%A0.+take+an+approximately+analogous+position+to+the+statistical+mechanics+within+the+framework+of+classical+mechanics%C2%A0.%C2%A0..%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this often-quoted passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3e4f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I am, in fact, rather firmly convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this (theory) operates with an incomplete description of physical systems . </i>[] [In]<i> a complete physical description, the statistical quantum theory would </i>[]<i> take an approximately analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics .”</i></span></blockquote><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="559c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="555" data-image-id="1*5r77OULrZUSSf2cIqYOgDA.png" data-width="1021" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*5r77OULrZUSSf2cIqYOgDA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The cat-in-a-box thought experiment.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="973c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Albert Einstein was at one with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Erwin Schrödinger</a> on many of these issues. That is, Schrödinger was also against <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22subjectivism+in+physics%22&sca_esv=597127733&sxsrf=ACQVn08DLEsxZUo3w7aXW7j3NP0uHv52EA%3A1704866825422&source=hp&ei=CTSeZcrWFoi49u8P28azgAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ5CGSk8rueYDW8HfXoCZPTLIYDj78vU&ved=0ahUKEwiK_4_sk9KDAxUInP0HHVvjDIAQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22subjectivism+in+physics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihkic3ViamVjdGl2aXNtIGluIHBoeXNpY3MiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI9ghQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZaABZaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22subjectivism+in+physics%22&sca_esv=597127733&sxsrf=ACQVn08DLEsxZUo3w7aXW7j3NP0uHv52EA%3A1704866825422&source=hp&ei=CTSeZcrWFoi49u8P28azgAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZ5CGSk8rueYDW8HfXoCZPTLIYDj78vU&ved=0ahUKEwiK_4_sk9KDAxUInP0HHVvjDIAQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22subjectivism+in+physics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihkic3ViamVjdGl2aXNtIGluIHBoeXNpY3MiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI9ghQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBZaABZaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“subjectivism in physics”</a>, which is precisely what New Agers, spiritual philosophers, etc. stress and propagate.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f2b1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Schrödinger (in 1926), for example, stated that Bohr’s “approach to atomic problems [] is really remarkable”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d489"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Why did Schrödinger state that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5122"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Sense_and_Nonsense/Frg7DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22He+is+completely+convinced+that+any+understanding+in+the+usual+sense+of+the+word+is+impossible.%22&pg=PA4&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Quantum_Sense_and_Nonsense/Frg7DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22He+is+completely+convinced+that+any+understanding+in+the+usual+sense+of+the+word+is+impossible.%22&pg=PA4&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continued</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a4e1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“He is completely convinced that any understanding in the usual sense of the word is impossible.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fca1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is Schrödinger stressing scientific realism. In other words, he was arguing against the<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> subjectivism</em> and even (as some had it) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealism</em> of the Copenhagenists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ff6d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1275"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The “understanding” which Schrödinger demanded, could be had without stressing the observer or consciousness. In other words, what physicists had achieved at the “classical” level, Schrödinger believed physicists could achieve at the quantum level too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1520"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, New Agers, spiritual idealists and spiritual philosophers are also very keen on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Niels Bohr</a>’s notion of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">complementarity</em></a>. Indeed, such people (just like postmodernists) apply it to almost everything under the sun. (This is much in the way that Gödel incompleteness theorem is applied to every under the sun. [See the non-ironic <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/predict/the-most-important-theorem-in-modern-logic-this-theorem-has-far-reaching-implications-for-3dedd9e967f0" href="https://medium.com/predict/the-most-important-theorem-in-modern-logic-this-theorem-has-far-reaching-implications-for-3dedd9e967f0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Incompleteness explains everything. Kurt Gödel’s legacy’</a>.])</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c17"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Agers, spiritual idealists and spiritual philosophers are keen to mention and quote Schrödinger too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="615b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet here’s Schrödinger rejecting complementarity. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Erwin_Schrodinger_and_the_Quantum_Revolu/L0zc32HdrN4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Old-age+dotage+closes+my+eyes+towards+the+marvelous+discovery+of+%27complementarity%27.+So+unable+is+the+good+average+theoretical+physicist+to+believe+that+any+sound+person+could+refuse+to+accept+the+Kopenhagen+oracle.%22&pg=PA255&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Erwin_Schrodinger_and_the_Quantum_Revolu/L0zc32HdrN4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Old-age+dotage+closes+my+eyes+towards+the+marvelous+discovery+of+%27complementarity%27.+So+unable+is+the+good+average+theoretical+physicist+to+believe+that+any+sound+person+could+refuse+to+accept+the+Kopenhagen+oracle.%22&pg=PA255&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e16a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Old-age dotage closes my eyes towards the marvelous discovery of ‘complementarity’. So unable is the good average theoretical physicist to believe that any sound person could refuse to accept the Kopenhagen oracle </i>[i.e., Niels Bohr]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1765"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Schrödinger then went into detail with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%5BM%5Dost+of+my+friendly+(truly+friendly)+nearer+colleagues+%5B%5D+have+formed+the+opinion+that+I+am+-+naturally+enough+-+in+love+with+my+great+success+in+life+(viz.,+wave+mechanics)+reaped+at+the+time+I+still+had+all+my+wits+at+my+command+and+therefore,+so+they+say,+I+insist+upon+the+view+that+all+is+waves+.&pg=PA337&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%5BM%5Dost+of+my+friendly+%28truly+friendly%29+nearer+colleagues+%5B%5D+have+formed+the+opinion+that+I+am+-+naturally+enough+-+in+love+with+my+great+success+in+life+%28viz.,+wave+mechanics%29+reaped+at+the+time+I+still+had+all+my+wits+at+my+command+and+therefore,+so+they+say,+I+insist+upon+the+view+that+all+is+waves+.&pg=PA337&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a95a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[M]<i>ost of my friendly (truly friendly) nearer colleagues </i>[]<i> have formed the opinion that I am — naturally enough — in love with ‘my’ great success in life (viz., wave mechanics) reaped at the time I still had all my wits at my command and therefore, so they say, I insist upon the view that ‘all is waves’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If we now move forward in time to John Bell again.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9649"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bell argued against the stress on the the split between what he called “the observer” and “the system”. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Speakable_and_Unspeakable_in_Quantum_Mec/FGnnHxh2YtQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Nor+will+it+involve+any+use+of+the+words+%27quantum+mechanical+system%27,+which+can+have+an+unfortunate+effect+on+the+discussion.%22&pg=PA150&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Speakable_and_Unspeakable_in_Quantum_Mec/FGnnHxh2YtQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Nor+will+it+involve+any+use+of+the+words+%27quantum+mechanical+system%27,+which+can+have+an+unfortunate+effect+on+the+discussion.%22&pg=PA150&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f94a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[T]<i>he words ‘quantum mechanical system’, which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f545"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On one contextless reading at least, Bell’s way of putting things can be seen to actually work on behalf of a (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness-first</em> position. In other words, that passage seems to imply the joint importance of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the observer</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the system</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="12ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, that wasn’t what Bell was getting at.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5888"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bell was actually advocating for the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">elimination</em> of the observer. He wasn’t arguing that the observer (or, as idealists put it, “consciousness”) and the system have a joint importance either — let alone that they can be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophically fused</em>. Instead, Bell<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>believed </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=John+Bell+was+a+realist&sca_esv=596487516&source=hp&ei=Q6abZf3IDKGrhbIP6KO9iAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZu0U4g6J5khKddLwpM-7IQreqd5Zwhq&ved=0ahUKEwi99tutpM2DAxWhVUEAHehRDxEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=John+Bell+was+a+realist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdKb2huIEJlbGwgd2FzIGEgcmVhbGlzdDIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBVI5i1QAFjwJnAAeACQAQCYAXagAZcNqgEEMjIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhjHARixAxjRAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQLhiABMICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg4QLhiDARjUAhixAxiABMICBRAAGIAEwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAg4QLhgWGB4YxwEYrwEYCsICBxAhGAoYoAE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=John+Bell+was+a+realist&sca_esv=596487516&source=hp&ei=Q6abZf3IDKGrhbIP6KO9iAE&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZZu0U4g6J5khKddLwpM-7IQreqd5Zwhq&ved=0ahUKEwi99tutpM2DAxWhVUEAHehRDxEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=John+Bell+was+a+realist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdKb2huIEJlbGwgd2FzIGEgcmVhbGlzdDIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBVI5i1QAFjwJnAAeACQAQCYAXagAZcNqgEEMjIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhjHARixAxjRAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQLhiABMICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg4QLhiDARjUAhixAxiABMICBRAAGIAEwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAg4QLhgWGB4YxwEYrwEYCsICBxAhGAoYoAE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> that the observer could be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eliminated</em> (or factored out) completely. Thus, the quantum world could — at least in principle — be described (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in itself</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a5a0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And that is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">scientific realism</em></a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1f13" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea97"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the physicists which New Agers, spiritual philosophers and spiritual idealists quote and mention (such as Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli and even Bohm) don’t neatly (or even at all) fit into their own spiritual worldviews. Still, artfully-selected lines (i.e., rarely full passages) from these supposedly “religious” or “spiritual” physicists are still quoted in out-of-context… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contexts. </em>What’s more,<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>the same lines are quoted very many times, and they regularly appear as memes on social media. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 6.</strong>]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="fbe0"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2ee2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="74a5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> Take this comment on Donald Hoffman’s own brand of reductionism:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9e4d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“You pointed out </i>[Donald Hoffman’s]<i> strawmanning of reductionism </i>[] [W]<i>hat is his theory of conscious agents purportedly explaining space time, particles, and scattering amplitudes if it isn’t reductionist?) </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b91e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This passage can be found after a YouTube video interview called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icY3Fuik2W4&t=4753s" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icY3Fuik2W4&t=4753s" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘What is Reality’</a>, in which the philosophers Keith Frankish and Philip Goff interview Donald Hoffman.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e182"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> According to one biographer (i.e., Walter Moore, in his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schrodinger-Life-Thought-Walter-Moore/dp/0521437679" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Schrödinger: Life and Thought</em></a>),</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="dc4f"><a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+philosophy+of+Schr%C3%B6dinger+at+this+time+does+not+appear+to+have+been+influenced+by+his+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+philosophy+of+Schr%C3%B6dinger+at+this+time+does+not+appear+to+have+been+influenced+by+his+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the philosophy of Schrödinger at this time does not appear to have been influenced by his physics”.</i></span></a></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b900"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In addition, Schrödinger</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f900"><a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22often+said+that+one+cannot+derive+philosophical+conclusions+from+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Life_of_Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger/n6XZlrJxgFkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22often+said+that+one+cannot+derive+philosophical+conclusions+from+physics%22.&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“often said that one cannot derive philosophical conclusions from physics”.</i></span></a></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a477"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relationalism-as-defended-in-his-book-helgoland-2020-b66caf122159#:~:text=Rovelli%20puts%20his%20own%20relationalist,will%20make%20of%20Rovelli%27s%20statement." href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relationalism-as-defended-in-his-book-helgoland-2020-b66caf122159#:~:text=Rovelli%20puts%20his%20own%20relationalist,will%20make%20of%20Rovelli%27s%20statement." target="_blank">‘Carlo Rovelli’s Relationalism — as Defended in His Book, Helgoland’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relational-quantum-mechanics-256cc264f394" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relational-quantum-mechanics-256cc264f394" target="_blank">‘Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics’</a>, and my ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/every-subatomic-particle-must-go-d6b482781f19" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/every-subatomic-particle-must-go-d6b482781f19" target="_blank">Every Subatomic Particle Must Go</a>’ (which is on James Ladyman’s ontic structural realism).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d4d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(4)</strong> The term “subjectivism” isn’t actually a synonym of “idealism”, but it’s often been used in such a way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2db9"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(5)</span></strong></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="39e2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="517" data-image-id="1*lXydYpE4oBNArrnLv6GtAQ.png" data-width="751" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*lXydYpE4oBNArrnLv6GtAQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c8c9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Spiritual philosophers and New Agers play down determinism at the physical or scientific level. Yet, at the very same time, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> of them also play up God’s — or “the One’s” — power over every aspect of our lives and the universe. Indeed, such “spiritual” and religious people can even be deemed to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">fatalists</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e47d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(6) </strong>Many spiritual philosophers, New Agers and spiritual idealists seem to have learned a lot from political activists on social media. That is, in the way in which they rely heavily on memes, titillating images (often psychedelic images of people looking up at the stars), catchy slogans, copied-and-pasted quotes from selected physicists, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e47d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-19483119417040379622024-01-28T08:10:00.000-08:002024-01-28T08:10:38.770-08:00Me, Myself and the Multiverse: Self-Obsessive Talk About Many Worlds<p><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">First things first. I’m more than willing to accept that it’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">possible</em> that there are many worlds or that there’s a multiverse. I’m even willing to accept that many worlds <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">actually exist</em>. However, I’m not willing to accept the titillating, sexy and self-obsessive crap that’s said about them by some scientists, and which the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">New Scientist</em> gleefully quotes.</span></strong></p><section class="section section--body" name="ee04"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3bcb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*siTO68Rx9SVnACHa_1rgdg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*siTO68Rx9SVnACHa_1rgdg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">note 1</strong>.]</span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="765d"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Max Tegmark on Many Worlds</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Seth Lloyd on Many Worlds</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Don Page on Many Worlds</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="01fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The following essay isn’t a scientific or metaphysical take on the existence (or not) of many worlds. It’s a take on some of the silly things which have been said about them by scientists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e71c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, like the science writer<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Ball</a>, most readers will see the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">appeal</em> of many worlds.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3b35"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ball <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iai.tv/articles/the-many-worlds-fantasy-auid-1793" href="https://iai.tv/articles/the-many-worlds-fantasy-auid-1793" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1929"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Alternative realities hold an irresistible allure. Whether it’s Dickens’ </i>A Christmas Carol<i>, Frank Capra’s </i>It’s a Wonderful Life<i>, or the quantum-computed parallel universes of Alex Garland’s recent TV series </i>Devs<i>, the possible lives that we can imagine having led but did not lead offer a stage for acting out our fears and fantasies.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3ad1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ball then ties that to the science — or, more precisely, to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">interpretations</em> of the science. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22It+is+no+surprise%2C+then%2C+that+the+Many+Worlds+interpretation+%28MWI%29+of+quantum+mechanics+seems+to+hold+such+attraction.+Even+though+most+physicists+dismiss+or+even+deride+it%2C+it+is+often+eagerly+embraced+by+physics+popularizers+and+their+audiences.+Yet+it+can+be+hard+to+figure+out+how+seriously+some+of+its+advocates+really+take+it.+I+believe+some+physicists+genuinely+see+it+as+an+elegant+solution+to+deep+conundrums+of+the+notoriously+mind-bending+quantum+theory%2C+and+I+sympathize+with+some+of+their+reasoning.+But+when+they+start+talking+about+%27quantum+brothers%27+%28and+presumably+sisters%2C+though+Many+Worlds+has+curiously+few+female+advocates%29+%5B%5D+I+have+to+wonder+whether%2C+indifferent+to+the+philosophical+complications%2C+they+are+just+enjoying+the+fantasy.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=ReiOZfr1L6mExc8P8IGJ-Ac&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY72Veyf2TNma9JOhHg2qtp5OywXMprV&ved=0ahUKEwi6rMu9_bSDAxUpQvEDHfBAAn8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22It+is+no+surprise%2C+then%2C+that+the+Many+Worlds+interpretation+%28MWI%29+of+quantum+mechanics+seems+to+hold+such+attraction.+Even+though+most+physicists+dismiss+or+even+deride+it%2C+it+is+often+eagerly+embraced+by+physics+popularizers+and+their+audiences.+Yet+it+can+be+hard+to+figure+out+how+seriously+some+of+its+advocates+really+take+it.+I+believe+some+physicists+genuinely+see+it+as+an+elegant+solution+to+deep+conundrums+of+the+notoriously+mind-bending+quantum+theory%2C+and+I+sympathize+with+some+of+their+reasoning.+But+when+they+start+talking+about+%27quantum+brothers%27+%28and+presumably+sisters%2C+though+Many+Worlds+has+curiously+few+female+advocates%29+%5B%5D+I+have+to+wonder+whether%2C+indifferent+to+the+philosophical+complications%2C+they+are+just+enjoying+the+fantasy.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22It+is+no+surprise%2C+then%2C+that+the+Many+Worlds+interpretation+%28MWI%29+of+quantum+mechanics+seems+to+hold+such+attraction.+Even+though+most+physicists+dismiss+or+even+deride+it%2C+it+is+often+eagerly+embraced+by+physics+popularizers+and+their+audiences.+Yet+it+can+be+hard+to+figure+out+how+seriously+some+of+its+advocates+really+take+it.+I+believe+some+physicists+genuinely+see+it+as+an+elegant+solution+to+deep+conundrums+of+the+notoriously+mind-bending+quantum+theory%2C+and+I+sympathize+with+some+of+their+reasoning.+But+when+they+start+talking+about+%27quantum+brothers%27+%28and+presumably+sisters%2C+though+Many+Worlds+has+curiously+few+female+advocates%29+%5B%5D+I+have+to+wonder+whether%2C+indifferent+to+the+philosophical+complications%2C+they+are+just+enjoying+the+fantasy.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=ReiOZfr1L6mExc8P8IGJ-Ac&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY72Veyf2TNma9JOhHg2qtp5OywXMprV&ved=0ahUKEwi6rMu9_bSDAxUpQvEDHfBAAn8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22It+is+no+surprise%2C+then%2C+that+the+Many+Worlds+interpretation+%28MWI%29+of+quantum+mechanics+seems+to+hold+such+attraction.+Even+though+most+physicists+dismiss+or+even+deride+it%2C+it+is+often+eagerly+embraced+by+physics+popularizers+and+their+audiences.+Yet+it+can+be+hard+to+figure+out+how+seriously+some+of+its+advocates+really+take+it.+I+believe+some+physicists+genuinely+see+it+as+an+elegant+solution+to+deep+conundrums+of+the+notoriously+mind-bending+quantum+theory%2C+and+I+sympathize+with+some+of+their+reasoning.+But+when+they+start+talking+about+%27quantum+brothers%27+%28and+presumably+sisters%2C+though+Many+Worlds+has+curiously+few+female+advocates%29+%5B%5D+I+have+to+wonder+whether%2C+indifferent+to+the+philosophical+complications%2C+they+are+just+enjoying+the+fantasy.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">continues</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e8f9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It is no surprise, then, that the Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics seems to hold such attraction. Even though most physicists dismiss or even deride it, it is often eagerly embraced by physics popularizers and their audiences. Yet it can be hard to figure out how seriously some of its advocates really take it. I believe some physicists genuinely see it as an elegant solution to deep conundrums of the notoriously mind-bending quantum theory, and I sympathize with some of their reasoning. But when they start talking about ‘quantum brothers’ (and presumably sisters, though Many Worlds has curiously few female advocates) </i>[]<i> I have to wonder whether, indifferent to the philosophical complications, they are just enjoying the fantasy.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5ddc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">… “[j]ust enjoying the fantasy”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="40c3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And many people may now say: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">And what’s wrong with that?</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="be2b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Nothing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6396"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As long as we all realise that’s precisely what it is: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">people just enjoying the fantasy</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c561"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And it’s not as if Philip Ball has just made all this stuff up.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="69c8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Impossible_Possible_and_Improbable/u1R0EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22There+really+is,+for+example,+a+Wuthering+Heights+world+(but+not+a+Harry+Potter%C2%A0world).%22&pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Impossible_Possible_and_Improbable/u1R0EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22There+really+is,+for+example,+a+Wuthering+Heights+world+%28but+not+a+Harry+Potter%C2%A0world%29.%22&pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">according to</a> the science writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="John Gribbin">John Gribbin</a>, “[t]here really is [] a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Wuthering Heights</em> world (but not a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Harry Potter</em> world)”.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="d8c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="616" data-image-id="1*aM8Q1jr3p3dtKvpirv_wXQ.png" data-width="855" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*aM8Q1jr3p3dtKvpirv_wXQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="aac8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">New Scientist</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>writer<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newscientist.com/author/rowan-hooper/" href="https://www.newscientist.com/author/rowan-hooper/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Rowan Hooper</a> himself <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">implicitly</em> expresses the vanity — or fear — of many of these <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">deep words </em>about many worlds in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+the+multiverse+is+real%2C+on+the+other+hand%2C+there+always+will+be+a+universe+in+which+%27you%27+are+alive%2C+no+matter+how+long+you%C2%A0play.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=cemOZb2kF9qFxc8P1qqFiAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY73gf6LWWOGGsH5LSKu1v4HFg3lx4X6&ved=0ahUKEwj9oLnM_rSDAxXaQvEDHVZVAWEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22If+the+multiverse+is+real%2C+on+the+other+hand%2C+there+always+will+be+a+universe+in+which+%27you%27+are+alive%2C+no+matter+how+long+you%C2%A0play.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IocBIklmIHRoZSBtdWx0aXZlcnNlIGlzIHJlYWwsIG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5kLCB0aGVyZSBhbHdheXMgd2lsbCBiZSBhIHVuaXZlcnNlIGluIHdoaWNoICd5b3UnIGFyZSBhbGl2ZSwgbm8gbWF0dGVyIGhvdyBsb25nIHlvdcKgcGxheS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+the+multiverse+is+real%2C+on+the+other+hand%2C+there+always+will+be+a+universe+in+which+%27you%27+are+alive%2C+no+matter+how+long+you%C2%A0play.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=cemOZb2kF9qFxc8P1qqFiAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY73gf6LWWOGGsH5LSKu1v4HFg3lx4X6&ved=0ahUKEwj9oLnM_rSDAxXaQvEDHVZVAWEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22If+the+multiverse+is+real%2C+on+the+other+hand%2C+there+always+will+be+a+universe+in+which+%27you%27+are+alive%2C+no+matter+how+long+you%C2%A0play.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IocBIklmIHRoZSBtdWx0aXZlcnNlIGlzIHJlYWwsIG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5kLCB0aGVyZSBhbHdheXMgd2lsbCBiZSBhIHVuaXZlcnNlIGluIHdoaWNoICd5b3UnIGFyZSBhbGl2ZSwgbm8gbWF0dGVyIGhvdyBsb25nIHlvdcKgcGxheS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a087"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If the multiverse is real </i>[]<i> there always will be a universe in which ‘you’ are alive, no matter how long you play.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="28e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Isn’t this a (scare-quoted) “scientific” version of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife" rel="noopener" target="_blank">afterlife</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>posited by religions? Indeed, it’s not much more sophisticated than that. (It may even be less sophisticated.) It actually reminds me of the spiritual idealist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bernardo+kastrup&sca_esv=594692341&ei=aQSRZb-AMczPhbIP-4inuAk&ved=0ahUKEwj_2N3MgLmDAxXMZ0EAHXvECZcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=bernardo+kastrup&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEGJlcm5hcmRvIGthc3RydXAyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyCBAuGIAEGLEDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESOwTULUFWLYOcAF4AZABAJgBTqAB0gGqAQEzuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgWGB7iAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bernardo+kastrup&sca_esv=594692341&ei=aQSRZb-AMczPhbIP-4inuAk&ved=0ahUKEwj_2N3MgLmDAxXMZ0EAHXvECZcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=bernardo+kastrup&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEGJlcm5hcmRvIGthc3RydXAyChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyCBAuGIAEGLEDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESOwTULUFWLYOcAF4AZABAJgBTqAB0gGqAQEzuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgWGB7iAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a>’s words on the afterlife, which are also equally <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reassuring </em>to his disciples.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fbd9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a video called<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQEEHH11jRU" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQEEHH11jRU" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> ‘When We Die and The Meaning of Life’</a>, Kastrup offers his viewers the following<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(as one of them puts it) “very reassuring” words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8dc4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Under analytical idealism, your core subjectivity remains as you as you go through the process of death, and even after. Because your core subjectivity is the core subjectivity of nature. It’s what exists. Where is it going to go? Life and death happen to it — within it. Life and death are events in core subjectivity, not at the beginning and end of core subjectivity.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4938"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Philip Ball himself goes into the science (or lack thereof) of many worlds, which I won’t be doing in this essay. However, I will be making various logical points. That said, my main theme will be the psychological self-obsessions of the scientists who feel the need to speak about many worlds in the way that they do.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[A strong distinction can be made between the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III#Later_recognition" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III#Later_recognition" rel="noopener" target="_blank">many worlds</a> of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hugh Everett</a> (i.e., his rejection of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse" rel="noopener" target="_blank">collapse of the wave function</a>), and the various scientific theories about the multiverse, which only tangentially mention wave-function collapse. However, these distinctions don’t really impinge on the issues discussed in this essay.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b08e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So let’s start with the Machine Learning researcher, physicist and writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Max Tegmark</a>.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="84a9"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b570" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Max Tegmark on Many Worlds</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f250"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="571" data-image-id="1*mGsDLmZ6LRGw6i8JCIsQKw.png" data-width="945" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*mGsDLmZ6LRGw6i8JCIsQKw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="0f65"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In an interview with the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">New Scientist</em>’s Rowan Hooper, Max Tegmark said <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27I+feel+a+strong+kinship+with+parallel+Maxes%2C+even+though+I+never+get+to+meet+them.+They+share+my+values%2C+my+feelings%2C+my+memories%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athey%27re+closer+to+me+than+brothers.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=ZuqOZYOyBsLw6APyhKvwBQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY74dgKznZvIT0EVs3ghCUklLcDKypvw&ved=0ahUKEwiD_ZHB_7SDAxVCOHoKHXLCCl4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27I+feel+a+strong+kinship+with+parallel+Maxes%2C+even+though+I+never+get+to+meet+them.+They+share+my+values%2C+my+feelings%2C+my+memories%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athey%27re+closer+to+me+than+brothers.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iq4BIidJIGZlZWwgYSBzdHJvbmcga2luc2hpcCB3aXRoIHBhcmFsbGVsIE1heGVzLCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBJIG5ldmVyIGdldCB0byBtZWV0IHRoZW0uIFRoZXkgc2hhcmUgbXkgdmFsdWVzLCBteSBmZWVsaW5ncywgbXkgbWVtb3JpZXPigIot4oCKdGhleSdyZSBjbG9zZXIgdG8gbWUgdGhhbiBicm90aGVycy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27I+feel+a+strong+kinship+with+parallel+Maxes%2C+even+though+I+never+get+to+meet+them.+They+share+my+values%2C+my+feelings%2C+my+memories%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athey%27re+closer+to+me+than+brothers.%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=ZuqOZYOyBsLw6APyhKvwBQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY74dgKznZvIT0EVs3ghCUklLcDKypvw&ved=0ahUKEwiD_ZHB_7SDAxVCOHoKHXLCCl4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27I+feel+a+strong+kinship+with+parallel+Maxes%2C+even+though+I+never+get+to+meet+them.+They+share+my+values%2C+my+feelings%2C+my+memories%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athey%27re+closer+to+me+than+brothers.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iq4BIidJIGZlZWwgYSBzdHJvbmcga2luc2hpcCB3aXRoIHBhcmFsbGVsIE1heGVzLCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBJIG5ldmVyIGdldCB0byBtZWV0IHRoZW0uIFRoZXkgc2hhcmUgbXkgdmFsdWVzLCBteSBmZWVsaW5ncywgbXkgbWVtb3JpZXPigIot4oCKdGhleSdyZSBjbG9zZXIgdG8gbWUgdGhhbiBicm90aGVycy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="dc03"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“‘I feel a strong kinship with parallel Maxes, even though I never get to meet them. They share my values, my feelings, my memories — they’re closer to me than brothers.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d26d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[Recall Philip Ball’s earlier words: “But when they start talking about ‘quantum brothers’ [].”]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e971"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How does Tegmark know anything about these “parallel Maxes”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="552a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does he simply do so according to the probabilities which are vital to many-worlds theory? In other words, if there really are infinite worlds, then Parallel Maxes surely <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> “share [Tegmark’s] values, [his] feelings, [his] memories”…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0cb7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But what a weird route to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">kinship</em> this is.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c7d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Tegmark has a “strong kinship” with Parallel Maxes simply because, according to many-worlds theory, they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> exist. However, he hasn’t met any of these Parallel Maxes. He hasn’t any direct experience of them. Thus, even if Parallel Maxes do exist, then why does Tegmark feel <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">kinship</em> with them — if there are no causal interactions whatsoever between himself and these “counterparts” at all?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eed0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this a gross misuse of the word “kinship”, or am I simply being pedantic here?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f2d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, are these Parallel Maxes purely logical constructions — or even like David Lewis’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpart_theory" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpart_theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“counterparts”</a>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f7fd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Another thing is that if there are infinite Parallel (or Possible) Maxes in infinite possible worlds, then why do <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> of them share Tegmark’s values, feelings and memories? Some Parallel Maxes must do so, according to the logic of many-worlds theory. However, infinite Parallel Maxes won’t.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="24c9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So why does Tegmark believe that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> Possible Maxes share <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> his values, feelings and memories? If every possible Tegmark exists, then many Maxes — infinite Maxes — must also be serial killers, self-obsessed narcissists, paedophiles, dictators, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dfeb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Rowan Hooper also<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+perspective+makes+it+difficult+for+%5Bhim%5D+to+feel+sorry+for+himself%3A+there%27s+always+another+Max+who+has+it+worse+than%C2%A0him%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=leqOZY3DPNyqxc8P9NudiAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY74pswUzjuhV6y_OYu8GPDu1v0pMzBH&ved=0ahUKEwjN4fzX_7SDAxVcVfEDHfRtB0EQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+perspective+makes+it+difficult+for+%5Bhim%5D+to+feel+sorry+for+himself%3A+there%27s+always+another+Max+who+has+it+worse+than%C2%A0him%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoIBImNvc21pYyBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSBtYWtlcyBpdCBkaWZmaWN1bHQgZm9yIFtoaW1dIHRvIGZlZWwgc29ycnkgZm9yIGhpbXNlbGY6IHRoZXJlJ3MgYWx3YXlzIGFub3RoZXIgTWF4IHdobyBoYXMgaXQgd29yc2UgdGhhbsKgaGltIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22cosmic+perspective+makes+it+difficult+for+%5Bhim%5D+to+feel+sorry+for+himself%3A+there%27s+always+another+Max+who+has+it+worse+than%C2%A0him%22&sca_esv=594447929&source=hp&ei=leqOZY3DPNyqxc8P9NudiAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY74pswUzjuhV6y_OYu8GPDu1v0pMzBH&ved=0ahUKEwjN4fzX_7SDAxVcVfEDHfRtB0EQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22cosmic+perspective+makes+it+difficult+for+%5Bhim%5D+to+feel+sorry+for+himself%3A+there%27s+always+another+Max+who+has+it+worse+than%C2%A0him%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoIBImNvc21pYyBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSBtYWtlcyBpdCBkaWZmaWN1bHQgZm9yIFtoaW1dIHRvIGZlZWwgc29ycnkgZm9yIGhpbXNlbGY6IHRoZXJlJ3MgYWx3YXlzIGFub3RoZXIgTWF4IHdobyBoYXMgaXQgd29yc2UgdGhhbsKgaGltIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us</a> that Tegmark’s</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="01f7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“cosmic perspective makes it difficult for </i>[him]<i> to feel sorry for himself: there’s always another Max who has it worse than him” .</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="28f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Shouldn’t Hooper have told his readers that there’s also a Parallel Max who “has it” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">better</em> than Our Tegmark too? There’s also an infinite number of Parallel Maxes who have it almost exactly the same as him. And there’s also infinite Parallel Maxes who have it slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, much better, etc. than Tegmark @ our world.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2c99"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, with all these possibilities, one wonders what the point is.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e837"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, one wonders why Tegmark should single out the Parallel Max who “has it worse than him”, and not the infinite Maxes who have it better than him.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f99"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As before, Tegmark may single out the Parallel Max who has it worse than him purely because this serves an emotional and moral purpose. However, that’s just a fact about the psychology of Max Tegmark @ our world. It has little to with the metaphysics, science or logic of many worlds or the multiverse.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0adc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, many-worlds theory has provided Tegmark with a playground in which he can do various things. Indeed, Hooper says that Tegmark can “learn some lessons” from these many worlds. Yet it must also be said that many <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">other people</em> will learn very different lessons — even ones that directly contradict Tegmark’s own — when they also think about many worlds.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b64c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps Tegmark wouldn’t deny any of this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="83ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, what point does thinking about infinite Parallel Maxes serve?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="628a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, Our Tegmark himself <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+multiverse+has+definitely+made+me+a+happier+person.+It%27s+given+me+the+courage+to+take+chances+to+be+bold+in%C2%A0life.%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=zOqOZZytK7yMxc8P7rWdkAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY743FETM1EGZMkmQVe5bmi1MEbyKGQF&ved=0ahUKEwicw4jy_7SDAxU8RvEDHe5aB0IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+multiverse+has+definitely+made+me+a+happier+person.+It%27s+given+me+the+courage+to+take+chances+to+be+bold+in%C2%A0life.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IngiVGhlIG11bHRpdmVyc2UgaGFzIGRlZmluaXRlbHkgbWFkZSBtZSBhIGhhcHBpZXIgcGVyc29uLiBJdCdzIGdpdmVuIG1lIHRoZSBjb3VyYWdlIHRvIHRha2UgY2hhbmNlcyB0byBiZSBib2xkIGluwqBsaWZlLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+multiverse+has+definitely+made+me+a+happier+person.+It%27s+given+me+the+courage+to+take+chances+to+be+bold+in%C2%A0life.%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=zOqOZZytK7yMxc8P7rWdkAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY743FETM1EGZMkmQVe5bmi1MEbyKGQF&ved=0ahUKEwicw4jy_7SDAxU8RvEDHe5aB0IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+multiverse+has+definitely+made+me+a+happier+person.+It%27s+given+me+the+courage+to+take+chances+to+be+bold+in%C2%A0life.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IngiVGhlIG11bHRpdmVyc2UgaGFzIGRlZmluaXRlbHkgbWFkZSBtZSBhIGhhcHBpZXIgcGVyc29uLiBJdCdzIGdpdmVuIG1lIHRoZSBjb3VyYWdlIHRvIHRha2UgY2hhbmNlcyB0byBiZSBib2xkIGluwqBsaWZlLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8ede"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The multiverse has definitely made me a happier person. It’s given me the courage to take chances to be bold in life.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="81d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Readers may wonder if Tegmark would believe in the multiverse had it made him an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">unhappier</em> person. And what if its existence had made him <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">cowardly </em>by<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>stopping him from <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">taking chances in life</em>? After all, why shouldn’t deep thought about many worlds have these negative effects on people too? Indeed, according to the logic of many worlds, it will do. What’s more, there’ll also be an infinite number of Parallel Maxes who’re made <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">unhappy</em> when they think about many worlds.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c4d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For Tegmark, many-worlds talks serves a moral and emotional purpose. And in order for that to work, he must ignore all the Parallel Maxes who’re evil, dull, without interest, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cff7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Consequently, this contemplation of Parallel Maxes just seems like a vanity project on Tegmark’s part.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="895c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, according to Shannon Hall, Tegmark <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22has+even+calculated+the+distance+you+would+have+to+travel+to+meet+your+doppelganger%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=B-uOZaq7E92Jxc8P4JuQkAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75FxXnogxUgwlXZO3CsVck7Nve6xmx&ved=0ahUKEwjq2oGOgLWDAxXdRPEDHeANBJIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22has+even+calculated+the+distance+you+would+have+to+travel+to+meet+your+doppelganger%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlUiaGFzIGV2ZW4gY2FsY3VsYXRlZCB0aGUgZGlzdGFuY2UgeW91IHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgdG8gdHJhdmVsIHRvIG1lZXQgeW91ciBkb3BwZWxnYW5nZXIiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22has+even+calculated+the+distance+you+would+have+to+travel+to+meet+your+doppelganger%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=B-uOZaq7E92Jxc8P4JuQkAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75FxXnogxUgwlXZO3CsVck7Nve6xmx&ved=0ahUKEwjq2oGOgLWDAxXdRPEDHeANBJIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22has+even+calculated+the+distance+you+would+have+to+travel+to+meet+your+doppelganger%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlUiaGFzIGV2ZW4gY2FsY3VsYXRlZCB0aGUgZGlzdGFuY2UgeW91IHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgdG8gdHJhdmVsIHRvIG1lZXQgeW91ciBkb3BwZWxnYW5nZXIiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“has even calculated the distance you would have to travel to meet your doppelganger”</a>. Apparently, it would be “1 followed by a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion zeros” metres.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9530"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is the multiverse <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">personal therapy</a> for Tegmark?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ecf8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps it is, and there’s no problem with that. Yet this therapy has little to with the science, metaphysics and logic of the multiverse. But, again, perhaps Tegmark and others wouldn’t claim otherwise.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d664"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now take the words of a professor of mechanical engineering,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Seth Lloyd</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="d522" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Seth Lloyd on Many Worlds</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9e1a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="444" data-image-id="1*7YivIn0FSqLz2p7DNmcYOg.png" data-width="786" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*7YivIn0FSqLz2p7DNmcYOg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Seth Lloyd</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea0a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is it ethics/morality, religion or even politics which drives these statements on many worlds?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9042"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Seth Lloyd, for example, tells us that he’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22always+enjoyed+the+gradual+marginalisation+of+humanity%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=UuuOZd2VKMblxc8P1uu1uA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75Yu58EIUz4H5iIFeIWJv4NEyEfCOQ&ved=0ahUKEwjdhvixgLWDAxXGcvEDHdZ1DecQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22always+enjoyed+the+gradual+marginalisation+of+humanity%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjgiYWx3YXlzIGVuam95ZWQgdGhlIGdyYWR1YWwgbWFyZ2luYWxpc2F0aW9uIG9mIGh1bWFuaXR5IjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiTCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGkAaABpAGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22always+enjoyed+the+gradual+marginalisation+of+humanity%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=UuuOZd2VKMblxc8P1uu1uA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75Yu58EIUz4H5iIFeIWJv4NEyEfCOQ&ved=0ahUKEwjdhvixgLWDAxXGcvEDHdZ1DecQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22always+enjoyed+the+gradual+marginalisation+of+humanity%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjgiYWx3YXlzIGVuam95ZWQgdGhlIGdyYWR1YWwgbWFyZ2luYWxpc2F0aW9uIG9mIGh1bWFuaXR5IjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiTCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGkAaABpAGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“always enjoyed the gradual marginalisation of humanity”</a>. He adds that many-worlds theory is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22really+like+the+ultimate+step+in+the+marginalisation+of+human+beings%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=e-uOZaj4NYmIxc8P-qmDqAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75i5DHNAOCh7d0xVkF2ggpwkQJUvGL&ved=0ahUKEwjooczFgLWDAxUJRPEDHfrUADUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22really+like+the+ultimate+step+in+the+marginalisation+of+human+beings%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkYicmVhbGx5IGxpa2UgdGhlIHVsdGltYXRlIHN0ZXAgaW4gdGhlIG1hcmdpbmFsaXNhdGlvbiBvZiBodW1hbiBiZWluZ3MiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22really+like+the+ultimate+step+in+the+marginalisation+of+human+beings%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=e-uOZaj4NYmIxc8P-qmDqAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75i5DHNAOCh7d0xVkF2ggpwkQJUvGL&ved=0ahUKEwjooczFgLWDAxUJRPEDHfrUADUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22really+like+the+ultimate+step+in+the+marginalisation+of+human+beings%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkYicmVhbGx5IGxpa2UgdGhlIHVsdGltYXRlIHN0ZXAgaW4gdGhlIG1hcmdpbmFsaXNhdGlvbiBvZiBodW1hbiBiZWluZ3MiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“really like the ultimate step in the marginalisation of human beings”</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">.</strong> What’s more, he “enjoy[s] that” marginalisation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="802b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some readers may wonder why it’s better to talk about the “marginalisation of humanity” than it is to go all <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=anthropic+%28word%29&sca_esv=594603375&ei=RTKQZYGjCqeuhbIP76WumAw&ved=0ahUKEwjB2b-YuLeDAxUnV0EAHe-SC8MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=anthropic+%28word%29&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=anthropic+%28word%29&sca_esv=594603375&ei=RTKQZYGjCqeuhbIP76WumAw&ved=0ahUKEwjB2b-YuLeDAxUnV0EAHe-SC8MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=anthropic+%28word%29&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">anthrop</a>ic and (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">big up</em> humanity (i.e., in terms of its place on the cosmic stage).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="81ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, why not do neither?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="df4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It can even be argued that Seth Lloyd’s delight in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">marginalisation of humanity</em> belongs to exactly the same mindset as that of those who big up humanity. In other words, all he’s doing is inverting this (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">binary opposition</em></a>, and thus playing exactly the same game.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3700"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[This is just as the existentialists inverted religious people’s stress on “the meaning of life, the universe and everything” by stressing the absurdity and/or meaninglessness of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">life, the universe and everything</em>. See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/life-and-the-universe-are-neither-meaningless-nor-meaningful-85e2f4fae487#:~:text=Many%20religious%20people%20look%20for,of%20these%20very%20same%20things." href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/life-and-the-universe-are-neither-meaningless-nor-meaningful-85e2f4fae487#:~:text=Many%20religious%20people%20look%20for,of%20these%20very%20same%20things." target="_blank">‘Life and the Universe are Neither Meaningless nor Meaningful’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="286a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To explain in more detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="abeb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many religious people — and others too — have stressed the profound importance of (what Seth Lloyd calls) “humanity” in the Universe. Lloyd stresses humanity too. It just so happens that he focuses on humanity by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">marginalising</em> it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="be1e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The happy medium is to neither to big up humanity, nor to marginalise it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc13"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More carefully. In some contexts, the importance of humanity can easily be made. However, in other contexts, its lack of importance can also be made. Moreover, the stress on the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">marginalisation of humanity</em> by a member of humanity (using the highly-sophisticated theories of humanity to do so) just seems bogus or even self-contradictory.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="af06"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This isn’t to argue that humanity should be bigged up because members of it came up with many-worlds theory itself (which can be used to marginalise humanity). However, many-worlds theory, depending on context, shouldn’t really be used to marginalise humanity either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f54"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, Seth Lloyd marginalising humanity could even be seen as him <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">bigging himself up</em> in the process — and he’s a member of humanity.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7230"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Crudely, are there any other beings marginalising themselves in other worlds?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b26"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now for Canadian theoretical physicist and “evangelical Christian” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Page_(physicist)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Page_%28physicist%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Don Page</a>:</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c10e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Don Page on Many Worlds</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="297a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="675" data-image-id="1*g03D1ecL4hOp2SJK4OULpg.png" data-width="773" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*g03D1ecL4hOp2SJK4OULpg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="bcdb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Don Page takes the biscuit when he brings God into the many-worlds equation. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22God+won%27t+collapse+the+wave+function+to+cure+people+of+cancer%2C+or+prevent+earthquakes+or+whatever%2C+because+that+would+make+the+universe+much+more+inelegant.%22&sca_esv=594603375&source=hp&ei=wjKQZZz3FIukhbIPkquwiAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZBA0sZXQQ3PtoTxffrbBpbo9MtbENQA&ved=0ahUKEwic4JfUuLeDAxULUkEAHZIVDHEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22God+won%27t+collapse+the+wave+function+to+cure+people+of+cancer%2C+or+prevent+earthquakes+or+whatever%2C+because+that+would+make+the+universe+much+more+inelegant.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip4BIkdvZCB3b24ndCBjb2xsYXBzZSB0aGUgd2F2ZSBmdW5jdGlvbiB0byBjdXJlIHBlb3BsZSBvZiBjYW5jZXIsIG9yIHByZXZlbnQgZWFydGhxdWFrZXMgb3Igd2hhdGV2ZXIsIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBtYWtlIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSBtdWNoIG1vcmUgaW5lbGVnYW50LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22God+won%27t+collapse+the+wave+function+to+cure+people+of+cancer%2C+or+prevent+earthquakes+or+whatever%2C+because+that+would+make+the+universe+much+more+inelegant.%22&sca_esv=594603375&source=hp&ei=wjKQZZz3FIukhbIPkquwiAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZBA0sZXQQ3PtoTxffrbBpbo9MtbENQA&ved=0ahUKEwic4JfUuLeDAxULUkEAHZIVDHEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22God+won%27t+collapse+the+wave+function+to+cure+people+of+cancer%2C+or+prevent+earthquakes+or+whatever%2C+because+that+would+make+the+universe+much+more+inelegant.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip4BIkdvZCB3b24ndCBjb2xsYXBzZSB0aGUgd2F2ZSBmdW5jdGlvbiB0byBjdXJlIHBlb3BsZSBvZiBjYW5jZXIsIG9yIHByZXZlbnQgZWFydGhxdWFrZXMgb3Igd2hhdGV2ZXIsIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBtYWtlIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSBtdWNoIG1vcmUgaW5lbGVnYW50LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">states</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d345"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“God won’t collapse the wave function to cure people of cancer, or prevent earthquakes or whatever, because that would make the universe much more inelegant.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6208"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Don Page is motivated by aesthetics and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">theism</a> — at least in this passage. He believes that if God collapsed the wave function, then that would be aesthetically “inelegant”. In other words, curing people of cancer and preventing earthquakes would be — at our world — <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">inelegant</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4772"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that Page’s God doesn’t collapse the wave function for aesthetic reasons. Instead, we have many worlds in which every possibility is instantiated. (Including starvation, deadly diseases, rape, war, etc.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6915"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is bizarre stuff.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="18e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyway, that’s Don Page on God’s personality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fe33"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What about Page on the personalities of what he calls “many-worlds experts”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="63a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Page<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22somewhat+relieved+to+find+that+even+many-worlds+experts+ultimately+behave+in+much+the+same+way+as+people+who+know+nothing+of%C2%A0it%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=uuuOZfzyC_uHxc8P15qu-A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75yuUha9z0OYcwBJpofR-ciuj6NFKV&ved=0ahUKEwj8t6fjgLWDAxX7Q_EDHVeNC98Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22somewhat+relieved+to+find+that+even+many-worlds+experts+ultimately+behave+in+much+the+same+way+as+people+who+know+nothing+of%C2%A0it%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoIBInNvbWV3aGF0IHJlbGlldmVkIHRvIGZpbmQgdGhhdCBldmVuIG1hbnktd29ybGRzIGV4cGVydHMgdWx0aW1hdGVseSBiZWhhdmUgaW4gbXVjaCB0aGUgc2FtZSB3YXkgYXMgcGVvcGxlIHdobyBrbm93IG5vdGhpbmcgb2bCoGl0IkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22somewhat+relieved+to+find+that+even+many-worlds+experts+ultimately+behave+in+much+the+same+way+as+people+who+know+nothing+of%C2%A0it%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=uuuOZfzyC_uHxc8P15qu-A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY75yuUha9z0OYcwBJpofR-ciuj6NFKV&ved=0ahUKEwj8t6fjgLWDAxX7Q_EDHVeNC98Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22somewhat+relieved+to+find+that+even+many-worlds+experts+ultimately+behave+in+much+the+same+way+as+people+who+know+nothing+of%C2%A0it%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoIBInNvbWV3aGF0IHJlbGlldmVkIHRvIGZpbmQgdGhhdCBldmVuIG1hbnktd29ybGRzIGV4cGVydHMgdWx0aW1hdGVseSBiZWhhdmUgaW4gbXVjaCB0aGUgc2FtZSB3YXkgYXMgcGVvcGxlIHdobyBrbm93IG5vdGhpbmcgb2bCoGl0IkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">happily admits</a> that he’s</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0255"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“somewhat relieved to find that even many-worlds experts ultimately behave in much the same way as people who know nothing of it”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b660"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Page concludes by saying that he’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22also+realised+that+it+shapes+the+way+they+think+about+their+decisions%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=8uuOZZHgC5uoxc8Pz4WAuAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY76Avr_uWX_LqtTm0pRISv33bVg8BpI&ved=0ahUKEwiRoYH-gLWDAxUbVPEDHc8CAMcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22also+realised+that+it+shapes+the+way+they+think+about+their+decisions%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkciYWxzbyByZWFsaXNlZCB0aGF0IGl0IHNoYXBlcyB0aGUgd2F5IHRoZXkgdGhpbmsgYWJvdXQgdGhlaXIgZGVjaXNpb25zIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22also+realised+that+it+shapes+the+way+they+think+about+their+decisions%22&sca_esv=594453044&source=hp&ei=8uuOZZHgC5uoxc8Pz4WAuAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZY76Avr_uWX_LqtTm0pRISv33bVg8BpI&ved=0ahUKEwiRoYH-gLWDAxUbVPEDHc8CAMcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22also+realised+that+it+shapes+the+way+they+think+about+their+decisions%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkciYWxzbyByZWFsaXNlZCB0aGF0IGl0IHNoYXBlcyB0aGUgd2F5IHRoZXkgdGhpbmsgYWJvdXQgdGhlaXIgZGVjaXNpb25zIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“also realised that it shapes the way they think about their decisions”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="afe9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My first thought is that most <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">many-worlds experts</em> don’t think about many worlds in the (religious and theistic) way in which he does. In other words, they don’t use it as a tool in theology, personal morality, and whatnot. That said, Page went onto say that thinking about many worlds did “shape” the “decisions” of the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">experts</em> who did the thinking. However, that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">shaping</em> results in them “behaving] in much the same way as people who know nothing of it”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6d18"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, again, what’s the point of all this stuff about many worlds?</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="ad10"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="635c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Note:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d49"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Most of the quotes in the essay above come from the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">New Scientist</em> book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://landing.newscientist.com/the-universe-next-door/" href="https://landing.newscientist.com/the-universe-next-door/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Universe Next Door</em></a>. The passages from Philip Ball don’t come from that book.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d49"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d49"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-91888596520672589852024-01-19T08:08:00.000-08:002024-01-19T08:08:58.603-08:00Donald Hoffman Is Lost in Maths: Decorated Permutations, Markov Chains… and Idealism<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*G6WOcfToLHyk4TKeT6C9Wg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*G6WOcfToLHyk4TKeT6C9Wg.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="94fc"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="6be2"><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Donald Hoffman takes the image on the right to “correspond to” or “map” the “ [partial] fusion of conscious agents”.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="50d5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“When a cognitive psychologist is talking a lot about fundamental physics to make his argument, it makes me very skeptical. Hoffman repeatedly says ‘the physicists,’ but he admits that most experts disagree with him. </i>[]<i> By the same token, he shouldn’t say ‘the math tells us that ____’ </i>[]<i> he shouldn’t claim that ‘the math’ tells us anything, instead he should say ‘my </i>[or Chetan Prakash’s] <i>math’ tells us something.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e42"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">— </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/@anonxnor" href="https://www.youtube.com/@anonxnor" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Anon X</strong></a></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a326"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[This reply can be found after the YouTube video <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icY3Fuik2W4" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icY3Fuik2W4" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘What Is Reality?’</a>, in which Donald Hoffman is interviewed by the philosophers Philip Goff and Keith Frankish.]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="3ee2"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="3330"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Donald Hoffman’s Theory of Everything</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Hoffman’s Use of Mathematics and Physics</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Abstract and/or Beyond Spacetime?</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Decorated Permutations, Markov Chains and Mapping</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Spacetime Is Doomed</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ce89"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Donald Hoffman</a> is a cognitive psychologist who works at the University of California,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Irvine.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>He<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>hasn’t written any papers on mathematics or physics. However, he has made extensive use of both mathematics and physics in work which is firmly outside both of these disciplines.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f5d5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This essay concentrates on the paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Fusions of Consciousness’</a>, which includes lots and lots of maths.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f7ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In that publication we have references to “permutated decorations”, “the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Parke–Taylor formula”, “positive Grassmannians”, “Plücker<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>coordinates”,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>“Feynman diagrams”, “quantum field theory”, “gluons”, “scattering amplitudes”, “countable infinities”, “on-shell diagrams”, “cosmological polytopes”, “the entropic arrow of time”, “dimensional simplex”, “Planck time”, “Markovian kernels”, “𝜎-algebra 𝒳”, “qualia kernels”, “Cantor’s hierarchy”, “<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">n</em>-dimensional vector space”, “communicating classes”, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="805f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet the central theme of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Fusions of Consciousness’</a> is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> in nature. Indeed, it’s also highly speculative.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c134"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s important to stress here that this essay isn’t a long argument against interdisciplinary work, or against the use of mathematics in philosophy. Rather, I’m simply a critic of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Donald Hoffman’s</em> interdisciplinary work, and the use of mathematics in his own philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="82af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It really doesn’t go beyond that.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="18ff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, for example, I’m a fan of the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Owen Flanagan</a> and his use of cognitive psychology, (general) psychology, neuroscience, etc. in his writings. [See Flanagan’s books <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4765/The-Science-of-the-Mind" href="https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4765/The-Science-of-the-Mind" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Science of Mind</em></a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousness-Reconsidered-Press-Owen-Flanagan/dp/0262560771" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousness-Reconsidered-Press-Owen-Flanagan/dp/0262560771" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Consciousness Reconsidered</em></a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c614"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anyway, to put all the detail which follows in its broad context, it’s worth stating Hoffman’s grand vision: that of creating his very own “theory of everything”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="32f1" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Donald Hoffman’s Theory of Everything</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="63a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="374" data-image-id="1*fUInXk7L5V97zLgWAe3FMA.png" data-width="770" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*fUInXk7L5V97zLgWAe3FMA.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">“There is no theory of everything”… in physics. However, Donald Hoffman believes that his very own brand of philosophical idealism provides such a theory. [This is the slogan for </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIKVF906q4" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIKVF906q4" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">this video interview</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"> with Donald Hoffman.]</strong></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e9e2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22vehicle+sufficiently+robust+to+sustain+the+next+leg+of+our+search+for+a+theory+of+everything%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=VEuIZeu8LvucptQPhuaboAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhZZMTS7QVFhkBhk2NWkxeuiZ0rcoh6&ved=0ahUKEwjrttj7rqiDAxV7jokEHQbzBqQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22vehicle+sufficiently+robust+to+sustain+the+next+leg+of+our+search+for+a+theory+of+everything%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Il4idmVoaWNsZSBzdWZmaWNpZW50bHkgcm9idXN0IHRvIHN1c3RhaW4gdGhlIG5leHQgbGVnIG9mIG91ciBzZWFyY2ggZm9yIGEgdGhlb3J5IG9mIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmciSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22vehicle+sufficiently+robust+to+sustain+the+next+leg+of+our+search+for+a+theory+of+everything%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=VEuIZeu8LvucptQPhuaboAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhZZMTS7QVFhkBhk2NWkxeuiZ0rcoh6&ved=0ahUKEwjrttj7rqiDAxV7jokEHQbzBqQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22vehicle+sufficiently+robust+to+sustain+the+next+leg+of+our+search+for+a+theory+of+everything%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Il4idmVoaWNsZSBzdWZmaWNpZW50bHkgcm9idXN0IHRvIHN1c3RhaW4gdGhlIG5leHQgbGVnIG9mIG91ciBzZWFyY2ggZm9yIGEgdGhlb3J5IG9mIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmciSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">his own words</a>, Hoffman believes that his idealism (or what he calls <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">conscious realism</em></a>) is a</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="881c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“vehicle sufficiently robust to sustain the next leg of our search for a theory of everything”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="14e6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, Hoffman compares what he’s doing to what <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Alan Turing</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>did all those years ago. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/Hoffman-Stevens-Handbook.pdf" href="http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/Hoffman-Stevens-Handbook.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8cba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+laws+of+physics+and+the+special+sciences+are+themselves+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=9E6IZeSkLbmZ5OMP6NanSA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhdBHw5ciomG40YxlvdoxKrt5P89H68&ved=0ahUKEwjk7pe2sqiDAxW5DHkGHWjrCQkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+laws+of+physics+and+the+special+sciences+are+themselves+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im4idGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgcGh5c2ljcyBhbmQgdGhlIHNwZWNpYWwgc2NpZW5jZXMgYXJlIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgYSBwcm9qZWN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkeW5hbWljcyBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+laws+of+physics+and+the+special+sciences+are+themselves+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=9E6IZeSkLbmZ5OMP6NanSA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhdBHw5ciomG40YxlvdoxKrt5P89H68&ved=0ahUKEwjk7pe2sqiDAxW5DHkGHWjrCQkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+laws+of+physics+and+the+special+sciences+are+themselves+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im4idGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgcGh5c2ljcyBhbmQgdGhlIHNwZWNpYWwgc2NpZW5jZXMgYXJlIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgYSBwcm9qZWN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkeW5hbWljcyBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="79cf"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the laws of physics and the special sciences are themselves a projection of the dynamics of conscious agents”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd37"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Not surprisingly, then, Hoffman <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22we+sketched+how+spacetime+and+particles+may+arise+as+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=HE-IZYCnFKOJptQPksqHmAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhdLFyrpjF_Xui0s9dFBzg7l8_NF2T4&ved=0ahUKEwiApYjJsqiDAxWjhIkEHRLlATMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22we+sketched+how+spacetime+and+particles+may+arise+as+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Imcid2Ugc2tldGNoZWQgaG93IHNwYWNldGltZSBhbmQgcGFydGljbGVzIG1heSBhcmlzZSBhcyBhIHByb2plY3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22we+sketched+how+spacetime+and+particles+may+arise+as+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=HE-IZYCnFKOJptQPksqHmAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhdLFyrpjF_Xui0s9dFBzg7l8_NF2T4&ved=0ahUKEwiApYjJsqiDAxWjhIkEHRLlATMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22we+sketched+how+spacetime+and+particles+may+arise+as+a+projection+of+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Imcid2Ugc2tldGNoZWQgaG93IHNwYWNldGltZSBhbmQgcGFydGljbGVzIG1heSBhcmlzZSBhcyBhIHByb2plY3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">adds that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="da37"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“we sketched how spacetime and particles may arise as a projection of the dynamics of conscious agents”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="73cd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As some readers will already know (due to his popular book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth-ebook/dp/B07NMRRJ48#:~:text=Drawing%20on%20thirty%20years%20of,we%20see%20through%20our%20eyes." href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth-ebook/dp/B07NMRRJ48#:~:text=Drawing%20on%20thirty%20years%20of,we%20see%20through%20our%20eyes." rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Case Against Reality</em></a>), Hoffman applies his idealism to evolutionary theory too. In Hoffman’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22evolutionary+framework+is+an+artifact+of+projection+from+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&ei=rU-IZbT_Ja6ZhbIPz56kyAk&ved=0ahUKEwj0iayOs6iDAxWuTEEAHU8PCZkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22evolutionary+framework+is+an+artifact+of+projection+from+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiWyJldm9sdXRpb25hcnkgZnJhbWV3b3JrIGlzIGFuIGFydGlmYWN0IG9mIHByb2plY3Rpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgZHluYW1pY3Mgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22evolutionary+framework+is+an+artifact+of+projection+from+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593436773&ei=rU-IZbT_Ja6ZhbIPz56kyAk&ved=0ahUKEwj0iayOs6iDAxWuTEEAHU8PCZkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22evolutionary+framework+is+an+artifact+of+projection+from+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiWyJldm9sdXRpb25hcnkgZnJhbWV3b3JrIGlzIGFuIGFydGlmYWN0IG9mIHByb2plY3Rpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgZHluYW1pY3Mgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c40f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Could it be that the entire] <i>evolutionary framework is an artifact of projection from the dynamics of conscious agents?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3210"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman then adds that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22We+would+require+to+obtain+evolution+as+a+projection+of+agent+dynamics%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=DVCIZfihAc7GhbIP7K67kAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYheHTD2OVyHZ3YjbNXC9j5n4BSi2lQ-&ved=0ahUKEwi43Oq7s6iDAxVOY0EAHWzXDnIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22We+would+require+to+obtain+evolution+as+a+projection+of+agent+dynamics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgiV2Ugd291bGQgcmVxdWlyZSB0byBvYnRhaW4gZXZvbHV0aW9uIGFzIGEgcHJvamVjdGlvbiBvZiBhZ2VudCBkeW5hbWljcyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22We+would+require+to+obtain+evolution+as+a+projection+of+agent+dynamics%22&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=DVCIZfihAc7GhbIP7K67kAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYheHTD2OVyHZ3YjbNXC9j5n4BSi2lQ-&ved=0ahUKEwi43Oq7s6iDAxVOY0EAHWzXDnIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22We+would+require+to+obtain+evolution+as+a+projection+of+agent+dynamics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgiV2Ugd291bGQgcmVxdWlyZSB0byBvYnRhaW4gZXZvbHV0aW9uIGFzIGEgcHJvamVjdGlvbiBvZiBhZ2VudCBkeW5hbWljcyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“[w]e would require to obtain evolution as a projection of agent dynamics”</a>.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9fa4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="506" data-image-id="1*IJ605c6l30i3BYPbLNLPFQ.png" data-width="957" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*IJ605c6l30i3BYPbLNLPFQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f86"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, let’s now focus on Hoffman’s use of mathematics and physics.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="97a2" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Donald Hoffman’s Use of Mathematics and Physics</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="fa5e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="861" data-image-id="1*_HoWWVor286LzNWLJq7jYg.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*_HoWWVor286LzNWLJq7jYg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc28"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">At least in terms of Donald Hoffman’s academic publications which deal with conscious realism (or idealism), it’s wrong to focus on him alone. That’s because Hoffman is actually a (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">fusion of two conscious agents</em>: himself and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://constructivist.info/authors/chetan-prakash" href="https://constructivist.info/authors/chetan-prakash" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Chetan Prakash</a>. Indeed, Hoffman and Prakash have been working together since the 1980s. (Hoffman has also worked with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://constructivist.info/authors/robert-prentner" href="https://constructivist.info/authors/robert-prentner" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Robert Prentner</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=manish+singh+and+donald+Hoffman&sca_esv=593535494&ei=3yaJZYTgBseShbIPp6qxgAo&ved=0ahUKEwjEy4ergKqDAxVHSUEAHSdVDKAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=manish+singh+and+donald+Hoffman&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH21hbmlzaCBzaW5naCBhbmQgZG9uYWxkIEhvZmZtYW4yBRAhGKABSNspUM0EWJwlcAF4AZABAJgBeaABzAuqAQQxOC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDRAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsAPCAhMQLhiABBiKBRhDGMgDGLAD2AEBwgIWEC4YgAQYigUYQxjUAhjIAxiwA9gBAcICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgoQIRgWGB4YDxgdwgIHECEYoAEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBg-6BgQIARgI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=manish+singh+and+donald+Hoffman&sca_esv=593535494&ei=3yaJZYTgBseShbIPp6qxgAo&ved=0ahUKEwjEy4ergKqDAxVHSUEAHSdVDKAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=manish+singh+and+donald+Hoffman&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH21hbmlzaCBzaW5naCBhbmQgZG9uYWxkIEhvZmZtYW4yBRAhGKABSNspUM0EWJwlcAF4AZABAJgBeaABzAuqAQQxOC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDRAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsAPCAhMQLhiABBiKBRhDGMgDGLAD2AEBwgIWEC4YgAQYigUYQxjUAhjIAxiwA9gBAcICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgoQIRgWGB4YDxgdwgIHECEYoAEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBg-6BgQIARgI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Manish Singh</a> and other academics with very similar philosophical views.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="69c5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s highly likely that Chetan Prakash is responsible for nearly (perhaps literally) all of the mathematics included in their cowritten published papers. (It’s even possible that Prakash introduced Hoffman to this brand of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22mathematical+idealism%22&sca_esv=593716544&ei=bY2KZaPIM_SfhbIPka25iAg&ved=0ahUKEwjjsqWk1qyDAxX0T0EAHZFWDoEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22mathematical+idealism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gIm1hdGhlbWF0aWNhbCBpZGVhbGlzbSIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESLo_UOMHWIo6cAN4AJABAJgBjwGgAdMKqgEEMTguMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22mathematical+idealism%22&sca_esv=593716544&ei=bY2KZaPIM_SfhbIPka25iAg&ved=0ahUKEwjjsqWk1qyDAxX0T0EAHZFWDoEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22mathematical+idealism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gIm1hdGhlbWF0aWNhbCBpZGVhbGlzbSIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESLo_UOMHWIo6cAN4AJABAJgBjwGgAdMKqgEEMTguMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“mathematical idealism”</a>.)</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="7e46"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="447" data-image-id="1*KEgJCOTHQHk7vfhf4ssnjg.png" data-width="546" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*KEgJCOTHQHk7vfhf4ssnjg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">ZDogg interviewing Donald Hoffman.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="aeb8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It can also be guessed nearly all of Hoffman’s followers and fans who’ve read the paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Fusions of Consciousness’</a> (January 2023) won’t have understood much — or even any — of the mathematics in it. This is certainly true of virtually all the people who’ve interviewed Hoffman for the their YouTube channels. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See the dozens — or even more — of interviews of Hoffman <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Donald+Hoffman" href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Donald+Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.] </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, it would be hard to establish this claim without a survey of some kind. However, it’s far less speculative than some of Hoffman’s own philosophical and cosmological claims.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="64ea"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Mathematicians and physicists, on the other hand, may (or even will) understand the maths (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> maths) and the physics (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> physics) in that paper. However, most of them won’t also understand how Hoffman is tying all the maths and physics to philosophical issues, consciousness and to idealism generally. (Most mathematicians and physicists will be perplexed by the references to “qualia”, “monads”, “the One”, “conscious agents”, “free will”, etc.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0018"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, Hoffman himself doesn’t understand much of the maths he uses either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c921"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Why do I say that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d49"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are a few reasons.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e605"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Firstly, he’s a cognitive psychologist with no (professional) background in either mathematics or physics. Secondly, we can accept Hoffman’s own word on his lack of maths skills.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f5d8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, in a YouTube video called ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDFGGVflRjo&t=2" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDFGGVflRjo&t=2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Abstract Math of Conscious Agent Theory w/ Dr. Donald Hoffman</a>’,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Hoffman stated the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1207"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hen you have limited math talents like me </i>[]<i> That’s what led me to then go to a real mathematician </i>[and fellow idealist]<i> Chetan Prakash and pursue the theorems now in the case of the agent dynamics.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b9d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, it can be assumed that nearly all the mathematics is down to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://constructivist.info/authors/chetan-prakash" href="https://constructivist.info/authors/chetan-prakash" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Chetan Prakash</a>, whom Hoffman has worked with on almost everything he’s published — at least when it comes to consciousness, conscious realism, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">doomed spacetime</em>, etc. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See a long list of Hoffman-Prakash collaborations <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash&sca_esv=593379330&source=hp&ei=1NmHZZq_LY2P9u8PqYOt8Aw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYfn5L-W41pm1h45cwFfQvsUF1yJ2Wdz&ved=0ahUKEwia-dncwqeDAxWNh_0HHalBC84Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgQ2hldGFuIFByYWthc2gyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjSV1AAWMpJcAF4AJABAJgBkwGgAfITqgEEMzIuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICERAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAggQABiABBixA8ICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGNQCwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash&sca_esv=593379330&source=hp&ei=1NmHZZq_LY2P9u8PqYOt8Aw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYfn5L-W41pm1h45cwFfQvsUF1yJ2Wdz&ved=0ahUKEwia-dncwqeDAxWNh_0HHalBC84Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgQ2hldGFuIFByYWthc2gyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjSV1AAWMpJcAF4AJABAJgBkwGgAfITqgEEMzIuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICERAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAggQABiABBixA8ICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGNQCwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> What’s more, when you see Prakash’s independent papers<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and live presentations (at least on the subjects Prakash and Hoffman share), you’ll note that they’re almost identical to Hoffman’s own — even down to the deployments of exactly the same phrases, as well as using the same the images, graphs, slides, and so on. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See the presentation — on YouTube —<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUxgETINCM&t=2018s" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUxgETINCM&t=2018s" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> ‘Conscious Agent Dynamics: Chetan Prakash’</a>, which could easily have been given by Hoffman himself.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="27e0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="355" data-image-id="1*qxVobQimjwUtChgitC-pbA.png" data-width="1077" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*qxVobQimjwUtChgitC-pbA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ca68"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bearing in mind all the above, it won’t be a surprise to find out that Hoffman hasn’t discussed these issues with professional physicists,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>professional mathematicians<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>or with any other professional scientists outside his own idealist (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash+constructivist+foundations&sca_esv=593610628&ei=1rmJZf2VKpKdhbIPlYqD6AM&ved=0ahUKEwj92LC_jKuDAxWSTkEAHRXFAD0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash+constructivist+foundations&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiPERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIGFuZCBDaGV0YW4gUHJha2FzaCBjb25zdHJ1Y3RpdmlzdCBmb3VuZGF0aW9uczIFECEYoAFI-SBQ6wZYgx1wAXgAkAEAmAGaAaABoQmqAQQxMC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBXiAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash+constructivist+foundations&sca_esv=593610628&ei=1rmJZf2VKpKdhbIPlYqD6AM&ved=0ahUKEwj92LC_jKuDAxWSTkEAHRXFAD0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+Chetan+Prakash+constructivist+foundations&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiPERvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIGFuZCBDaGV0YW4gUHJha2FzaCBjb25zdHJ1Y3RpdmlzdCBmb3VuZGF0aW9uczIFECEYoAFI-SBQ6wZYgx1wAXgAkAEAmAGaAaABoQmqAQQxMC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBXiAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“constructivist”</a>)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>colleagues and cowriters. (At least there aren’t any publications and videos which show that there’ve been such discussions.) Indeed, in a question-and-answer session published in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://scienceandnonduality.com/" href="https://scienceandnonduality.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Science & Nonduality</a> called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/the-universe-is-a-conscious-agent-chetan-prakash/" href="https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/the-universe-is-a-conscious-agent-chetan-prakash/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The Universe is a Conscious Agent’</a> (starting at 13.09 minutes), Chetan Prakash himself makes this clear when he tells the person who’s interviewing him that “scientists, generally, have more or less ignored [their work]”, and that “philosophers get very upset by it”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9797"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The problem here is that this frank acknowledgement by Prakash sets both himself and Hoffman up to be what’s often called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.dailygrail.com/2006/09/british-science-vs-the-heretics/" href="https://www.dailygrail.com/2006/09/british-science-vs-the-heretics/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“scientific heretics”</a>.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>And this designation is always a boon when it comes to many people with religious and “spiritual” inclinations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But what of that very-extensive use of maths in Hoffman’s papers?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0c7b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Essentially, Hoffman and Prakash are simply replicating the mathematics and physics which already exists, and then applying both to their idealist philosophy. Indeed, Hoffman admits he’s reliant on other people’s physics, as well as on the mathematics of Prakash.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a8cd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it needs to be said that all the maths (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> maths) and physics (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> physics) in this paper may well be largely correct.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ee6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, that’s not the issue here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="036e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The issue is that virtually none of the physics and maths is original to Hoffman and Prakash. What <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> original to them is the way they apply that preexisting maths and physics to their philosophical idealism. More relevantly, it’s the applications of the maths and physics that’s philosophically — and otherwise — highly suspect.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="589f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, in simple terms, Hoffman’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22theory+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593379330&source=hp&ei=qdqHZa7iOqzJ9u8P9Zu8uAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYfouoh_pmnIQ73zfaqsD8LFWeLjJtGo&ved=0ahUKEwju2q_Cw6eDAxWspP0HHfUND1cQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22theory+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhwidGhlb3J5IG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iUCVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFIoAFIqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22theory+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593379330&source=hp&ei=qdqHZa7iOqzJ9u8P9Zu8uAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYfouoh_pmnIQ73zfaqsD8LFWeLjJtGo&ved=0ahUKEwju2q_Cw6eDAxWspP0HHfUND1cQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22theory+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhwidGhlb3J5IG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0iUCVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFIoAFIqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“theory of conscious agents”</a> uses preexisting maths and physics, and then takes such things in an idealist direction.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0d3a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="469" data-image-id="1*Fmlioj8g9701QR6c9bChIA.png" data-width="861" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Fmlioj8g9701QR6c9bChIA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f64b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ultimately, Hoffman takes maths and physics in a “spiritual”<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>direction too. However, that wont be tackled in this essay. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+spirituality+and+religion&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=mE6IZZqzA7uYptQPt4CdsAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhcqHsYaU2R19QEPvHwCg55OrRLdNK9&ved=0ahUKEwia3_6JsqiDAxU7jIkEHTdAB2YQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+spirituality+and+religion&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IixEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgc3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5IGFuZCByZWxpZ2lvbjIFECEYoAFIo1FQAFiZTHAAeACQAQCYAbABoAHUMKoBBDAuNDS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+and+spirituality+and+religion&sca_esv=593436773&source=hp&ei=mE6IZZqzA7uYptQPt4CdsAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYhcqHsYaU2R19QEPvHwCg55OrRLdNK9&ved=0ahUKEwia3_6JsqiDAxU7jIkEHTdAB2YQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+and+spirituality+and+religion&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IixEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiBhbmQgc3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5IGFuZCByZWxpZ2lvbjIFECEYoAFIo1FQAFiZTHAAeACQAQCYAbABoAHUMKoBBDAuNDS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIIEC4YsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIECEYFhgeGB3CAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5ba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So let’s tackle the maths<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and physics in Hoffman’s paper a little more.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5ab0" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Abstract and/or Beyond Spacetime?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3a86"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="573" data-image-id="1*HhlAJsZ5iEHVOR9f6eXm0Q.png" data-width="819" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*HhlAJsZ5iEHVOR9f6eXm0Q.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">An image from ‘Fusions of Consciousness’.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="88c1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Donald Hoffman relies heavily on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Nima Arkani-Hamed</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://physics.ucdavis.edu/directory/faculty/jaroslav-trnka" href="https://physics.ucdavis.edu/directory/faculty/jaroslav-trnka" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Jaroslav Trnka</a>’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">amplituhedron</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="40d2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let Hoffman himself state <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563" href="https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a00a"><span class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“Another new candidate is a class of geometric constructions outside of space and time, including the amplituhedron discovered by Nima Arkani-Hamed and Jaroslav Trnka. Subatomic particles collide and scatter in a multitude of ways, and physicists have for decades had formulas for computing their probabilities, formulas that assume physical processes which evolve locally in space and time. But, as it happens, these formulas are unnecessarily complex and hide deep symmetries of nature. The amplituhedron simplifies the formulas, exposes the symmetries hidden by space-time and, in the process, abandons the assumption that space and time are fundamental.”</span></em></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3bbf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There’s a strong sense in which “a class of geometric constructions” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be outside of spacetime by virtue of the simple fact that such geometrical constructions are abstract. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=does+abstract+mean+non-spatiotemporal%3F&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=aiuJZZK-NvWB9u8Pxa6MqAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk5elweAICmL2dA74qdd5-yPpg_2jI-&ved=0ahUKEwiSm__VhKqDAxX1gP0HHUUXA4UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=does+abstract+mean+non-spatiotemporal%3F&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZkb2VzIGFic3RyYWN0IG1lYW4gbm9uLXNwYXRpb3RlbXBvcmFsP0iQTFAAWJNHcAB4AJABAJgBaqABmBWqAQQzNy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICERAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgUQIRigAcICCBAhGBYYHhgdwgIKECEYFhgeGA8YHcICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=does+abstract+mean+non-spatiotemporal%3F&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=aiuJZZK-NvWB9u8Pxa6MqAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk5elweAICmL2dA74qdd5-yPpg_2jI-&ved=0ahUKEwiSm__VhKqDAxX1gP0HHUUXA4UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=does+abstract+mean+non-spatiotemporal%3F&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZkb2VzIGFic3RyYWN0IG1lYW4gbm9uLXNwYXRpb3RlbXBvcmFsP0iQTFAAWJNHcAB4AJABAJgBaqABmBWqAQQzNy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICERAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgUQIRigAcICCBAhGBYYHhgdwgIKECEYFhgeGA8YHcICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> However, this is only in the sense that numbers, geometrical shapes,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>functions,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>etc. can be deemed to be outside of space and time according to a (purely) Platonic philosophy of mathematics.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematicism#Plato" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematicism#Plato" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4f37"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet this Platonic picture of maths doesn’t have much — or even anything — to do with either idealism or consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ac10"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In specific terms of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nima Arkani-Hamed</a>’s amplituhedron: it’s a geometrical tool which is used by theoretical physicists. It can also be seen as a pure abstraction. (The words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+%22highly+abstract%22+amplituhedron&sca_esv=593691520&source=hp&ei=QWWKZb7xJtOJ9u8Pz_626Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYpzURettfT8JczDD2efy8gv4dFuBYEd&ved=0ahUKEwj-lbP8r6yDAxXThP0HHU-_DZ0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=the+%22highly+abstract%22+amplituhedron&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiN0aGUgImhpZ2hseSBhYnN0cmFjdCIgYW1wbGl0dWhlZHJvbjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjuVVAAWIU9cAB4AJABAJgBdqAB1g2qAQQyNC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgcQABiABBgNwgIIEAAYBxgeGA_CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgPwgIGEAAYHhgNwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABgFGAcYHsICBhAAGAUYHsICBBAhGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+%22highly+abstract%22+amplituhedron&sca_esv=593691520&source=hp&ei=QWWKZb7xJtOJ9u8Pz_626Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYpzURettfT8JczDD2efy8gv4dFuBYEd&ved=0ahUKEwj-lbP8r6yDAxXThP0HHU-_DZ0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=the+%22highly+abstract%22+amplituhedron&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiN0aGUgImhpZ2hseSBhYnN0cmFjdCIgYW1wbGl0dWhlZHJvbjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUjuVVAAWIU9cAB4AJABAJgBdqAB1g2qAQQyNC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgcQABiABBgNwgIIEAAYBxgeGA_CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgPwgIGEAAYHhgNwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABgFGAcYHsICBhAAGAUYHsICBBAhGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“highly abstract”</a> are often used about the amplituhedron.) In other words,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22amplituhedron+theory%22&ei=kz58ZKXuJInHgQaUhKHYBQ&iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZHxMo6QMWDp_WDbK34JvOVsSheR9B5WE&ved=0ahUKEwjlg9-Ojan_AhWJY8AKHRRCCFsQ4dUDCAs&uact=5&oq=%22amplituhedron+theory%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgAEB4yCAgAEAgQHhAPOgUIABCABDoICAAQFhAeEA86BggAEBYQHlAAWLQrYIExaABwAHgAgAFaiAG0ApIBATSYAQCgAQKgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22amplituhedron+theory%22&ei=kz58ZKXuJInHgQaUhKHYBQ&iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZHxMo6QMWDp_WDbK34JvOVsSheR9B5WE&ved=0ahUKEwjlg9-Ojan_AhWJY8AKHRRCCFsQ4dUDCAs&uact=5&oq=%22amplituhedron+theory%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgAEB4yCAgAEAgQHhAPOgUIABCABDoICAAQFhAeEA86BggAEBYQHlAAWLQrYIExaABwAHgAgAFaiAG0ApIBATSYAQCgAQKgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">amplituhedron theory</a> provides physicists with a geometric model that’s essentially abstract in nature. Indeed, it’s abstract primarily because the geometrical space it offers theoretical physicists is not a (physical) spacetime.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3394"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, how, exactly, can a geometrical tool which simplifies the calculations which account for the interactions of particles be tied to Hoffman’s philosophical idealism? (Arkani-Hamed himself has stated<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>that the amplituhedron helps <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">simplify</em> scattering-amplitude calculations.) Inversely, how can Hoffman’s philosophical idealism be tied to a very particular model of particle interactions?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ef8d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, Hoffman actually tells us what he’s doing. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+section+and+the+next+propose+how+to+project+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents+down+to+spacetime%2C+using+structures+called+%27decorated+permutations%27.+%5B%5D+The+theory+of+conscious+agents+starts+with+a+dynamics+of+agents+that+is%2C+by+hypothesis%2C+outside+of+spacetime.+So+this+theory+must+explain+how+spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents.+This+is+a+colossal+project.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=Qi2JZcvZGdiH9u8P8Iyy-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk7Uhhh2JsY3lfpXxOWuxluzaeldUNv&ved=0ahUKEwjLguu2hqqDAxXYg_0HHXCGDJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22This+section+and+the+next+propose+how+to+project+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents+down+to+spacetime%2C+using+structures+called+%27decorated+permutations%27.+%5B%5D+The+theory+of+conscious+agents+starts+with+a+dynamics+of+agents+that+is%2C+by+hypothesis%2C+outside+of+spacetime.+So+this+theory+must+explain+how+spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents.+This+is+a+colossal+project.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+section+and+the+next+propose+how+to+project+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents+down+to+spacetime%2C+using+structures+called+%27decorated+permutations%27.+%5B%5D+The+theory+of+conscious+agents+starts+with+a+dynamics+of+agents+that+is%2C+by+hypothesis%2C+outside+of+spacetime.+So+this+theory+must+explain+how+spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents.+This+is+a+colossal+project.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=Qi2JZcvZGdiH9u8P8Iyy-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk7Uhhh2JsY3lfpXxOWuxluzaeldUNv&ved=0ahUKEwjLguu2hqqDAxXYg_0HHXCGDJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22This+section+and+the+next+propose+how+to+project+the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents+down+to+spacetime%2C+using+structures+called+%27decorated+permutations%27.+%5B%5D+The+theory+of+conscious+agents+starts+with+a+dynamics+of+agents+that+is%2C+by+hypothesis%2C+outside+of+spacetime.+So+this+theory+must+explain+how+spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents.+This+is+a+colossal+project.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6ee4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This section and the next propose how to project the dynamics of conscious agents down to spacetime, using structures called ‘decorated permutations’. </i>[]<i> The theory of conscious agents starts with a dynamics of agents that is, by hypothesis, outside of spacetime. So this theory must explain how spacetime and objects arise entirely from the dynamics of agents. This is a colossal project.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2668"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is a “colossal project” to establish a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">consciousness-first</em> “theory of everything”. However, this isn’t <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">subjective idealism</a>. Instead, it’s essentially a 21st-century brand of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">objective idealism</a> in that Hoffman focuses on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=0S2JZbe_Go-U9u8P2cSbsAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk74bFvBAJ5CneShy0ucXAhkdQ1gxx2&ved=0ahUKEwj364P7hqqDAxUPiv0HHVniBlYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIidGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiMgUQIRigAUi6CVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFjoAFjqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=0S2JZbe_Go-U9u8P2cSbsAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk74bFvBAJ5CneShy0ucXAhkdQ1gxx2&ved=0ahUKEwj364P7hqqDAxUPiv0HHVniBlYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+dynamics+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIidGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHMiMgUQIRigAUi6CVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFjoAFjqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the dynamics of conscious agents”</a> (i.e., in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">plural</em>) and their “interactions”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea3b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now for those “Markov chains” and “decorated permutations”, which Hoffman keeps on mentioning (i.e., in almost every interview his gives).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2486" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Decorated Permutations, Markov Chains and Mapping</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8bd0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="360" data-image-id="1*l9OUjYkoChxyAht7eRsZ_w.png" data-width="571" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*l9OUjYkoChxyAht7eRsZ_w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="bd67"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Donald Hoffman <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=By6JZYSoBeTo7_UPwsmFYA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk8F-XK23x27V5PjLI7stczPkS2CjtN&ved=0ahUKEwjEx86Uh6qDAxVk9LsIHcJkAQwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqEBInNob3cgaG93IGRlY29yYXRlZCBwZXJtdXRhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBvdGhlciBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVzIHRoYXQgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyBoYXZlIGZvdW5kIGJleW9uZCBzcGFjZXRpbWUsIGFyaXNlIGFzIGEgcHJvamVjdGlvbiBvZiBhIGRlZXBlciB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=By6JZYSoBeTo7_UPwsmFYA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk8F-XK23x27V5PjLI7stczPkS2CjtN&ved=0ahUKEwjEx86Uh6qDAxVk9LsIHcJkAQwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqEBInNob3cgaG93IGRlY29yYXRlZCBwZXJtdXRhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBvdGhlciBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVzIHRoYXQgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyBoYXZlIGZvdW5kIGJleW9uZCBzcGFjZXRpbWUsIGFyaXNlIGFzIGEgcHJvamVjdGlvbiBvZiBhIGRlZXBlciB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us</a> that he’s attempting to</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f304"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“show how decorated permutations, and other structures that physicists have found beyond spacetime, arise as a projection of a deeper theory of conscious agents”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1894"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Hoffman’s idealism, it’s not only that brains, neurons, trees, particles, football matches, sex acts, gluons, etc. are all the product of conscious agents, so too are the “decorated permutations, and other structures” which Hoffman uses and frequently mentions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9094"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+key+insight+is+this%3A+the+deepest+structure+beyond+spacetime+that+distills+physics+is+the+decorated+permutation.%22&sca_esv=593691520&source=hp&ei=tWWKZczfH7qkkdUPgeix6AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYpzxZnv2hcZILfdx1GrLgM5X48X6H_E&ved=0ahUKEwiMjtSzsKyDAxU6UqQEHQF0DB0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22One+key+insight+is+this%3A+the+deepest+structure+beyond+spacetime+that+distills+physics+is+the+decorated+permutation.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InUiT25lIGtleSBpbnNpZ2h0IGlzIHRoaXM6IHRoZSBkZWVwZXN0IHN0cnVjdHVyZSBiZXlvbmQgc3BhY2V0aW1lIHRoYXQgZGlzdGlsbHMgcGh5c2ljcyBpcyB0aGUgZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9uLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+key+insight+is+this%3A+the+deepest+structure+beyond+spacetime+that+distills+physics+is+the+decorated+permutation.%22&sca_esv=593691520&source=hp&ei=tWWKZczfH7qkkdUPgeix6AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYpzxZnv2hcZILfdx1GrLgM5X48X6H_E&ved=0ahUKEwiMjtSzsKyDAxU6UqQEHQF0DB0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22One+key+insight+is+this%3A+the+deepest+structure+beyond+spacetime+that+distills+physics+is+the+decorated+permutation.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InUiT25lIGtleSBpbnNpZ2h0IGlzIHRoaXM6IHRoZSBkZWVwZXN0IHN0cnVjdHVyZSBiZXlvbmQgc3BhY2V0aW1lIHRoYXQgZGlzdGlsbHMgcGh5c2ljcyBpcyB0aGUgZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9uLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us</a> more about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the</em> decorated permutation:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2cc0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“One key insight is this: the deepest structure beyond spacetime that distills physics is the decorated permutation.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b6cc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is the decorated permutation “beyond spacetime”, or, instead, is it simply abstract? Alternatively, is it beyond spacetime <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">because</em> it is abstract?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="41ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet these two alternatives don’t do much work for Hoffman. That’s because his philosophy isn’t actually about anything abstract (i.e., as in the Platonic view of numbers, geometrical shapes, etc.): it’s about something entirely different.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="507e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s go into a little more detail on mathematical abstractions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b1e6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman uses the term “correspondence” a few times. (As in the subsection called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Correspondence between Agent Dynamics and Physical Particles’</a>.) He also refers to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mapping</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1496"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman writes about his “theory of conscious agents” in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22These+two+insights+give+a+clear+target+for+the+theory+of+conscious+agents%3A+its+Markov-chain+dynamics+must+map+to+decorated+permutations+and+spins.+With+that+map%2C+we+can+propose+a+precise+correspondence+between+%281%29+the+Markov+polytopes+that+describe+all+possible+agent+dynamics+and+%282%29+the+on-shell+diagrams+that+generate+scattering+amplitudes%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=593189905&source=hp&ei=ElKGZdOnKbHA0PEP46SF8Ac&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYZgIskJaQOTX0fqnRn7eFMYHIyKksbY&ved=0ahUKEwjT-NWOzaSDAxUxIDQIHWNSAX4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22These+two+insights+give+a+clear+target+for+the+theory+of+conscious+agents%3A+its+Markov-chain+dynamics+must+map+to+decorated+permutations+and+spins.+With+that+map%2C+we+can+propose+a+precise+correspondence+between+%281%29+the+Markov+polytopes+that+describe+all+possible+agent+dynamics+and+%282%29+the+on-shell+diagrams+that+generate+scattering+amplitudes%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItsCIlRoZXNlIHR3byBpbnNpZ2h0cyBnaXZlIGEgY2xlYXIgdGFyZ2V0IGZvciB0aGUgdGhlb3J5IG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHM6IGl0cyBNYXJrb3YtY2hhaW4gZHluYW1pY3MgbXVzdCBtYXAgdG8gZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucyBhbmQgc3BpbnMuIFdpdGggdGhhdCBtYXAsIHdlIGNhbiBwcm9wb3NlIGEgcHJlY2lzZSBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuICgxKSB0aGUgTWFya292IHBvbHl0b3BlcyB0aGF0IGRlc2NyaWJlIGFsbCBwb3NzaWJsZSBhZ2VudCBkeW5hbWljcyBhbmQgKDIpIHRoZSBvbi1zaGVsbCBkaWFncmFtcyB0aGF0IGdlbmVyYXRlIHNjYXR0ZXJpbmcgYW1wbGl0dWRlc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22These+two+insights+give+a+clear+target+for+the+theory+of+conscious+agents%3A+its+Markov-chain+dynamics+must+map+to+decorated+permutations+and+spins.+With+that+map%2C+we+can+propose+a+precise+correspondence+between+%281%29+the+Markov+polytopes+that+describe+all+possible+agent+dynamics+and+%282%29+the+on-shell+diagrams+that+generate+scattering+amplitudes%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=593189905&source=hp&ei=ElKGZdOnKbHA0PEP46SF8Ac&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYZgIskJaQOTX0fqnRn7eFMYHIyKksbY&ved=0ahUKEwjT-NWOzaSDAxUxIDQIHWNSAX4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22These+two+insights+give+a+clear+target+for+the+theory+of+conscious+agents%3A+its+Markov-chain+dynamics+must+map+to+decorated+permutations+and+spins.+With+that+map%2C+we+can+propose+a+precise+correspondence+between+%281%29+the+Markov+polytopes+that+describe+all+possible+agent+dynamics+and+%282%29+the+on-shell+diagrams+that+generate+scattering+amplitudes%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItsCIlRoZXNlIHR3byBpbnNpZ2h0cyBnaXZlIGEgY2xlYXIgdGFyZ2V0IGZvciB0aGUgdGhlb3J5IG9mIGNvbnNjaW91cyBhZ2VudHM6IGl0cyBNYXJrb3YtY2hhaW4gZHluYW1pY3MgbXVzdCBtYXAgdG8gZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucyBhbmQgc3BpbnMuIFdpdGggdGhhdCBtYXAsIHdlIGNhbiBwcm9wb3NlIGEgcHJlY2lzZSBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuICgxKSB0aGUgTWFya292IHBvbHl0b3BlcyB0aGF0IGRlc2NyaWJlIGFsbCBwb3NzaWJsZSBhZ2VudCBkeW5hbWljcyBhbmQgKDIpIHRoZSBvbi1zaGVsbCBkaWFncmFtcyB0aGF0IGdlbmVyYXRlIHNjYXR0ZXJpbmcgYW1wbGl0dWRlc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7720"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>ts Markov-chain dynamics must map to decorated permutations and spins. With that map, we can propose a precise correspondence between (1) the Markov polytopes that describe all possible agent dynamics and (2) the on-shell diagrams that generate scattering amplitudes.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ee27"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Hoffman’s philosophy, “Markov-chain dynamics” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">map</em> “decorated permutations and spins”. However, the former also <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">map</em> the “dynamics of conscious agents”. Thus, to state the obvious, neither Markov chains nor decorated permutations actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">are</em> conscious agents, their interactions and dynamics. They’re supposed to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">map</em> — or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correspond to</em> — such things.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="539d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In simple terms, Markov chains are used as tools. They’re ways of statistically modelling “real-world processes”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a8ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman, on the other hand, uses Markov chains to model processes outside the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">world</em> — or at least outside physics and anything observable or empirical.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c825"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Just to show how odd — or simply different — Hoffman’s use of Markov chains is, it’s worth knowing that they’re used as ways to study animal population dynamics, currency exchange rates, cruise control systems in cars, queues of customers arriving at an airport, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a55"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a5d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A Markov chain (or Markov process) describes a sequence of events, and assigns probabilities to that sequence (or to each step in that sequence). What matters in this description is that, basically, each event depends on the previous event — or on the precise state of that previous event.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d426"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman, on the other hand, applies Markov chains to conscious agents and their interactions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e49a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">None of this work tells us what a conscious agent is. [See my<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/what-is-a-conscious-agent-donald-hoffman-please-tell-me-ca0b81d0d026" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/what-is-a-conscious-agent-donald-hoffman-please-tell-me-ca0b81d0d026" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>What Is a Conscious Agent? Donald Hoffman, Please Tell Me’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9a67"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">None of this work tells us how Hoffman actually (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">gets hold</em> of consciousness agents and their interactions in order to map them with Markov chains and decorated permutations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fe41"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Consequently, what, exactly, is Hoffman mapping, and how has he gained access to what it is he’s mapping?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0ea4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, all this clearly takes Hoffman beyond physics and science generally. Specifically, conscious agents and their interactions don’t belong to physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b4ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What do they belong to?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="25d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The answer to that question is simple: they belong to Hoffman’s philosophical idealism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1fb2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what has all this<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>to do with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hoffman+-+%22the+death+of+spacetime%22&sca_esv=593615924&source=hp&ei=XbuJZf-eGKDj7_UPz7WkwAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYnJbe_3S6fZiL5YmgVuZ5fwM4NO2bnq&ved=0ahUKEwi_wdf5jauDAxWg8bsIHc8aCTgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Hoffman+-+%22the+death+of+spacetime%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiJIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInRoZSBkZWF0aCBvZiBzcGFjZXRpbWUiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIsDFQAFi3LHAAeACQAQCYAYYBoAGNCKoBBDEwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQIRigAcICCBAAGIkFGKIE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hoffman+-+%22the+death+of+spacetime%22&sca_esv=593615924&source=hp&ei=XbuJZf-eGKDj7_UPz7WkwAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYnJbe_3S6fZiL5YmgVuZ5fwM4NO2bnq&ved=0ahUKEwi_wdf5jauDAxWg8bsIHc8aCTgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Hoffman+-+%22the+death+of+spacetime%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiJIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInRoZSBkZWF0aCBvZiBzcGFjZXRpbWUiMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIsDFQAFi3LHAAeACQAQCYAYYBoAGNCKoBBDEwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQIRigAcICCBAAGIkFGKIE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the death of spacetime”</a>?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="cd76" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Spacetime Is Doomed</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="8d37"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="451" data-image-id="1*5hjUOZeEvMyZzVQBO6Gx5A.png" data-width="680" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*5hjUOZeEvMyZzVQBO6Gx5A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b426"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Donald Hoffman warns us about something he calls <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22spacetime+recidivism%22&sca_esv=593610628&ei=H7eJZeXtKcKphbIP_vyDsAw&ved=0ahUKEwil-fzziauDAxXCVEEAHX7-AMYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22spacetime+recidivism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ0RvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInNwYWNldGltZSByZWNpZGl2aXNtIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI0i5QnwhY0ClwAXgBkAEAmAFuoAGSC6oBBDE0LjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIEECEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22spacetime+recidivism%22&sca_esv=593610628&ei=H7eJZeXtKcKphbIP_vyDsAw&ved=0ahUKEwil-fzziauDAxXCVEEAHX7-AMYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22spacetime+recidivism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ0RvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInNwYWNldGltZSByZWNpZGl2aXNtIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI0i5QnwhY0ClwAXgBkAEAmAFuoAGSC6oBBDE0LjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIEECEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spacetime recidivism”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c2f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Hoffman,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22the+physicists%22&sca_esv=593610628&source=hp&ei=T7eJZf-PNKX_7_UPiPCcQA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYnFX7MWE9RXXiCP-bBgI6692WTCAIYG&ved=0ahUKEwi_8_iKiquDAxWl_7sIHQg4BwgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22the+physicists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJ0aGUgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEiuOFAAWM8zcAB4AJABAJgBZqABvAuqAQQxOC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIGEAAYCBgewgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22the+physicists%22&sca_esv=593610628&source=hp&ei=T7eJZf-PNKX_7_UPiPCcQA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYnFX7MWE9RXXiCP-bBgI6692WTCAIYG&ved=0ahUKEwi_8_iKiquDAxWl_7sIHQg4BwgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22the+physicists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFEb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiAtICJ0aGUgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEiuOFAAWM8zcAB4AJABAJgBZqABvAuqAQQxOC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFEC4YgATCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIGEAAYCBgewgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the physicists”</a> themselves have gone beyond spacetime. [Read the opening quote again in reference to Hoffman’s repeated phrase “the physicists”.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fcb4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">An (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the</em>) alternative to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">spacetime recidivism</em>, however, can be found <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oadgHhdgRkI" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oadgHhdgRkI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">in Hoffman’s following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="744a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Spacetime is doomed. It, and its particles, cannot be fundamental in physical theory, but must emerge from a more fundamental theory.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d1c5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman believes that this “more fundamental theory” is his very own <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">conscious realism</em></a> — aka, his (scare-quoted) “scientific idealism”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c472"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">From another angle, Hoffman also believes that he needs to get outside spacetime in order to establish his (objective) idealism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7c0d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So not only must Hoffman’s philosophy account for particles, brains, neurons, trees, cups, football games, sexual acts, etc. in idealist terms: it must also do so with spacetime itself. In Hoffman’s philosophy, this means that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=iC-JZcWfLsL97_UPg_CWwAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk9mDubCwgmnYiqB8CYR4HXhJNMfQ1T&ved=0ahUKEwjFg8LMiKqDAxXC_rsIHQO4BRgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkIic3BhY2V0aW1lIGFuZCBvYmplY3RzIGFyaXNlIGVudGlyZWx5IGZyb20gdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=iC-JZcWfLsL97_UPg_CWwAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk9mDubCwgmnYiqB8CYR4HXhJNMfQ1T&ved=0ahUKEwjFg8LMiKqDAxXC_rsIHQO4BRgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22spacetime+and+objects+arise+entirely+from+the+dynamics+of+agents%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkIic3BhY2V0aW1lIGFuZCBvYmplY3RzIGFyaXNlIGVudGlyZWx5IGZyb20gdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mIGFnZW50cyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spacetime and objects arise entirely from the dynamics of agents”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d9b0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, in Hoffman’s idealism literally everything is down to (or a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22projection+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593610628&ei=17eJZZX0CO-shbIP7vORmA8&ved=0ahUKEwjVu7rLiquDAxVvVkEAHe55BPMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22projection+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMURvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInByb2plY3Rpb24gb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEj_MVD6DViQK3ABeACQAQCYAXSgAb4LqgEEMTUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLAD4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22projection+of+conscious+agents%22&sca_esv=593610628&ei=17eJZZX0CO-shbIP7vORmA8&ved=0ahUKEwjVu7rLiquDAxVvVkEAHe55BPMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman+-+%22projection+of+conscious+agents%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMURvbmFsZCBIb2ZmbWFuIC0gInByb2plY3Rpb24gb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzIGFnZW50cyIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEj_MVD6DViQK3ABeACQAQCYAXSgAb4LqgEEMTUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLAD4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“projection of”</a>) conscious agents — or everything is (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in</em> the Big Consciousness of what Hoffman calls <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the One”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5627"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d4a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27Physics%27+here+is+usually+taken+to+refer+to+the+physics+of+spacetime+and+objects%2C+namely+quantum+field+theory+and+general+relativity.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=9S6JZerwIv7i7_UPtYiFyA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk9BY0ueCScFgku2-rYlyGJ9kUTvCci&ved=0ahUKEwiqv6qGiKqDAxV-8bsIHTVEAekQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27Physics%27+here+is+usually+taken+to+refer+to+the+physics+of+spacetime+and+objects%2C+namely+quantum+field+theory+and+general+relativity.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IocBIidQaHlzaWNzJyBoZXJlIGlzIHVzdWFsbHkgdGFrZW4gdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gdGhlIHBoeXNpY3Mgb2Ygc3BhY2V0aW1lIGFuZCBvYmplY3RzLCBuYW1lbHkgcXVhbnR1bSBmaWVsZCB0aGVvcnkgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgcmVsYXRpdml0eS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27Physics%27+here+is+usually+taken+to+refer+to+the+physics+of+spacetime+and+objects%2C+namely+quantum+field+theory+and+general+relativity.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=9S6JZerwIv7i7_UPtYiFyA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk9BY0ueCScFgku2-rYlyGJ9kUTvCci&ved=0ahUKEwiqv6qGiKqDAxV-8bsIHTVEAekQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27Physics%27+here+is+usually+taken+to+refer+to+the+physics+of+spacetime+and+objects%2C+namely+quantum+field+theory+and+general+relativity.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IocBIidQaHlzaWNzJyBoZXJlIGlzIHVzdWFsbHkgdGFrZW4gdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gdGhlIHBoeXNpY3Mgb2Ygc3BhY2V0aW1lIGFuZCBvYmplY3RzLCBuYW1lbHkgcXVhbnR1bSBmaWVsZCB0aGVvcnkgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgcmVsYXRpdml0eS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9bd8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>‘[p]<i>hysics’ here is usually taken to refer to the physics of spacetime and objects, namely quantum field theory and general relativity”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b32c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Hoffman goes beyond spacetime in<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22we+do+not+locate+the+network+of+conscious+agents+inside+spacetime+precisely+because+physics+and+evolution+tell+us+that+these+structures+are+not+fundamental%2C+and+because+physics+itself+has+found+new+structures+beyond+spacetime%2C+such+as+amplituhedra+and+their+associated+decorated+permutations.%22&sca_esv=593541315&ei=LS-JZdm5FZSghbIP-vSNwAE&ved=0ahUKEwiZhPegiKqDAxUUUEEAHXp6AxgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22we+do+not+locate+the+network+of+conscious+agents+inside+spacetime+precisely+because+physics+and+evolution+tell+us+that+these+structures+are+not+fundamental%2C+and+because+physics+itself+has+found+new+structures+beyond+spacetime%2C+such+as+amplituhedra+and+their+associated+decorated+permutations.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAipgIid2UgZG8gbm90IGxvY2F0ZSB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIGluc2lkZSBzcGFjZXRpbWUgcHJlY2lzZWx5IGJlY2F1c2UgcGh5c2ljcyBhbmQgZXZvbHV0aW9uIHRlbGwgdXMgdGhhdCB0aGVzZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVzIGFyZSBub3QgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwsIGFuZCBiZWNhdXNlIHBoeXNpY3MgaXRzZWxmIGhhcyBmb3VuZCBuZXcgc3RydWN0dXJlcyBiZXlvbmQgc3BhY2V0aW1lLCBzdWNoIGFzIGFtcGxpdHVoZWRyYSBhbmQgdGhlaXIgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCBkZWNvcmF0ZWQgcGVybXV0YXRpb25zLiJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22we+do+not+locate+the+network+of+conscious+agents+inside+spacetime+precisely+because+physics+and+evolution+tell+us+that+these+structures+are+not+fundamental%2C+and+because+physics+itself+has+found+new+structures+beyond+spacetime%2C+such+as+amplituhedra+and+their+associated+decorated+permutations.%22&sca_esv=593541315&ei=LS-JZdm5FZSghbIP-vSNwAE&ved=0ahUKEwiZhPegiKqDAxUUUEEAHXp6AxgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22we+do+not+locate+the+network+of+conscious+agents+inside+spacetime+precisely+because+physics+and+evolution+tell+us+that+these+structures+are+not+fundamental%2C+and+because+physics+itself+has+found+new+structures+beyond+spacetime%2C+such+as+amplituhedra+and+their+associated+decorated+permutations.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAipgIid2UgZG8gbm90IGxvY2F0ZSB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzIGluc2lkZSBzcGFjZXRpbWUgcHJlY2lzZWx5IGJlY2F1c2UgcGh5c2ljcyBhbmQgZXZvbHV0aW9uIHRlbGwgdXMgdGhhdCB0aGVzZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVzIGFyZSBub3QgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwsIGFuZCBiZWNhdXNlIHBoeXNpY3MgaXRzZWxmIGhhcyBmb3VuZCBuZXcgc3RydWN0dXJlcyBiZXlvbmQgc3BhY2V0aW1lLCBzdWNoIGFzIGFtcGxpdHVoZWRyYSBhbmQgdGhlaXIgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCBkZWNvcmF0ZWQgcGVybXV0YXRpb25zLiJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4cd4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>e do not locate the network of conscious agents inside spacetime precisely because physics and evolution tell us that these structures are not fundamental, and because physics itself has found new structures beyond spacetime, such as amplituhedra and their associated decorated permutations.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3892"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, what’s original to Hoffman can be found in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22So+instead+of+merely+re-describing+conventional+physics+with+conscious+agents%2C+we+aim+to+show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=vi6JZf-jIsqG9u8Poam-gA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk8znKV0ereujrFyGUloofTyRGPtgDS&ved=0ahUKEwj_-ozsh6qDAxVKg_0HHaGUD-AQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22So+instead+of+merely+re-describing+conventional+physics+with+conscious+agents%2C+we+aim+to+show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvsBIlNvIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgbWVyZWx5IHJlLWRlc2NyaWJpbmcgY29udmVudGlvbmFsIHBoeXNpY3Mgd2l0aCBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzLCB3ZSBhaW0gdG8gc2hvdyBob3cgZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucywgYW5kIG90aGVyIHN0cnVjdHVyZXMgdGhhdCBwaHlzaWNpc3RzIGhhdmUgZm91bmQgYmV5b25kIHNwYWNldGltZSwgYXJpc2UgYXMgYSBwcm9qZWN0aW9uIG9mIGEgZGVlcGVyIHRoZW9yeSBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22So+instead+of+merely+re-describing+conventional+physics+with+conscious+agents%2C+we+aim+to+show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents.%22&sca_esv=593541315&source=hp&ei=vi6JZf-jIsqG9u8Poam-gA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYk8znKV0ereujrFyGUloofTyRGPtgDS&ved=0ahUKEwj_-ozsh6qDAxVKg_0HHaGUD-AQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22So+instead+of+merely+re-describing+conventional+physics+with+conscious+agents%2C+we+aim+to+show+how+decorated+permutations%2C+and+other+structures+that+physicists+have+found+beyond+spacetime%2C+arise+as+a+projection+of+a+deeper+theory+of+conscious+agents.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvsBIlNvIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgbWVyZWx5IHJlLWRlc2NyaWJpbmcgY29udmVudGlvbmFsIHBoeXNpY3Mgd2l0aCBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzLCB3ZSBhaW0gdG8gc2hvdyBob3cgZGVjb3JhdGVkIHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucywgYW5kIG90aGVyIHN0cnVjdHVyZXMgdGhhdCBwaHlzaWNpc3RzIGhhdmUgZm91bmQgYmV5b25kIHNwYWNldGltZSwgYXJpc2UgYXMgYSBwcm9qZWN0aW9uIG9mIGEgZGVlcGVyIHRoZW9yeSBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXMgYWdlbnRzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this conclusion</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="662d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“So instead of merely re-describing conventional physics with conscious agents, we aim to show how decorated permutations, and other structures that physicists have found beyond spacetime, arise as a projection of a deeper theory of conscious agents.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="911b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This “deeper theory of conscious agents” is the ultimate form or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reductionism</em></a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a15e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet it needs to be stated here that Hoffman’s idealist philosophy doesn’t stop being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reductionist</em> (or an example of a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reduction</em>) simply because it’s dealing with “non-physical” conscious agents, consciousness, and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the One.</em> Indeed, it has all the hallmarks of a classic reductive philosophy. However, it just also happens to have many “spiritual” elements within it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="48d3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To repeat. In Hoffman’s philosophy, literally everything in physics and the universe itself is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reduced</em> to conscious agents — or<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>to<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the consciousness of<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the One</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d5c1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That is the central thesis of Donald Hoffman’s idealism.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="1228"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h4 class="graf graf--h4" name="ddec"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Note: A Small Selection of Mathematical Extracts From ‘Fusions of Consciousness’</span></h4><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="75c0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="561" data-image-id="1*RPhhCWXWR4bIazww1An-3w.png" data-width="794" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*RPhhCWXWR4bIazww1An-3w.png" /></span></figure><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2eba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="385" data-image-id="1*825hj8nbxsSHXaCB5JDh4w.png" data-width="1070" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*825hj8nbxsSHXaCB5JDh4w.png" /></span></figure><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b0a8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="650" data-image-id="1*YcgGICp8eOL2n5ihJYPikg.png" data-width="823" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*YcgGICp8eOL2n5ihJYPikg.png" /></span></figure><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ab25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="740" data-image-id="1*JWTEXk_44TzUdJ52eeUqKg.png" data-width="1102" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*JWTEXk_44TzUdJ52eeUqKg.png" /></span></figure><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2bb6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="533" data-image-id="1*dmd_G_Ms1LdXFs_Af6DvPQ.png" data-width="1096" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*dmd_G_Ms1LdXFs_Af6DvPQ.png" /></span></figure><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="12b0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="534" data-image-id="1*e5wm7ZpoDSYc6n5VyukKEg.png" data-width="743" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*e5wm7ZpoDSYc6n5VyukKEg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p graf--empty" name="14a4"><br /></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-58578403671986780482024-01-18T08:08:00.000-08:002024-01-18T08:08:33.062-08:00Anti-Physicalist Gerald R. Baron on Physicalism<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*IQHlLvM5zYyD7tNqSJ1DHA.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*IQHlLvM5zYyD7tNqSJ1DHA.png" /></p><section class="section section--body" name="8a57"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="149c"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Gerald R. Baron on Physicalism</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Baron’s Transcendent and Supernatural Alternative</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Baron on the Clockwork Universe</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Mary Midgley on Scientific Reductionism</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="568d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Medium writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a> tells his readers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22belief+system+that+says+all+that+all+there+is+is+explained+by+causes+within+a+closed+universe%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ano+external+causes+allowed+and+certainly+nothing+supernatural+or+transcendent%22&sca_esv=592445786&source=hp&ei=oZyCZYiZAq2QhbIPxKqR-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKqsTHO4ThI57AQjkp6vP_myYMchXGz&ved=0ahUKEwjI7eDTw52DAxUtSEEAHURVBJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22belief+system+that+says+all+that+all+there+is+is+explained+by+causes+within+a+closed+universe%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ano+external+causes+allowed+and+certainly+nothing+supernatural+or+transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IrMBImJlbGllZiBzeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBzYXlzIGFsbCB0aGF0IGFsbCB0aGVyZSBpcyBpcyBleHBsYWluZWQgYnkgY2F1c2VzIHdpdGhpbiBhIGNsb3NlZCB1bml2ZXJzZeKAii3igIpubyBleHRlcm5hbCBjYXVzZXMgYWxsb3dlZCBhbmQgY2VydGFpbmx5IG5vdGhpbmcgc3VwZXJuYXR1cmFsIG9yIHRyYW5zY2VuZGVudCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22belief+system+that+says+all+that+all+there+is+is+explained+by+causes+within+a+closed+universe%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ano+external+causes+allowed+and+certainly+nothing+supernatural+or+transcendent%22&sca_esv=592445786&source=hp&ei=oZyCZYiZAq2QhbIPxKqR-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKqsTHO4ThI57AQjkp6vP_myYMchXGz&ved=0ahUKEwjI7eDTw52DAxUtSEEAHURVBJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22belief+system+that+says+all+that+all+there+is+is+explained+by+causes+within+a+closed+universe%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ano+external+causes+allowed+and+certainly+nothing+supernatural+or+transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IrMBImJlbGllZiBzeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBzYXlzIGFsbCB0aGF0IGFsbCB0aGVyZSBpcyBpcyBleHBsYWluZWQgYnkgY2F1c2VzIHdpdGhpbiBhIGNsb3NlZCB1bml2ZXJzZeKAii3igIpubyBleHRlcm5hbCBjYXVzZXMgYWxsb3dlZCBhbmQgY2VydGFpbmx5IG5vdGhpbmcgc3VwZXJuYXR1cmFsIG9yIHRyYW5zY2VuZGVudCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">what he takes physicalism to be</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bb46"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Physicalism is the]<i> belief system that says all that all there is is explained by causes within a closed universe — no external causes allowed and certainly nothing supernatural or transcendent.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="927b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The words “a belief system that says all that all there is is explained by causes within a closed universe” are okay, and most physicalists won’t have a problem with them. (I’m not sure about the words “belief system”, which seem too rhetorical and all-encompassing.) However, the final words “no external causes allowed and certainly nothing supernatural or transcendent” show us precisely what is important and relevant to Gerald Baron.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4c49"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">From those words (as well as from many other passages from Baron), it can safely be concluded that literally <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any</em> scientific and philosophical position is physicalist if it rejects (or simply ignores) the “supernatural or transcendent”. This means that countless scientific and philosophical positions can now be deemed “physicalist” according to Baron’s own definition. Indeed, perhaps <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> scientific and philosophical positions which reject (or simply ignore) the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">s</em>upernatural or transcendent are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">physicalist</em> in Baron’s book.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b2c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that explains why Baron takes so many positions to be examples of “physicalism”, and so many people to be “physicalists”. In other words, if a scientist, philosopher or layperson doesn’t <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.grbaron.com/case-3-maps.html" href="https://www.grbaron.com/case-3-maps.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“allow any room for the transcendent”</a>, then, by Baron’s definition, he or she simply <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be a physicalist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5044"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And all this may also explain why Baron rarely quotes any physicalists, let alone goes into detail about their positions or precise arguments. It’s enough for him to note that physicalists don’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">allow any room for the transcendent or supernatural</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae61"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the British philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Galen Strawson</a> (as far as I can see) is one exception to this.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="12cf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron tackles Strawson primarily because the latter offers arguments actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">against</em> physicalism. Yet, Baron has realised, those arguments <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">still</em> don’t include the supernatural and transcendent!…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="93c4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Baron classes Strawson’s position as (to use his own words) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-and-its-problems-4b81fb8838e6" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-and-its-problems-4b81fb8838e6" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“physicalist panpsychism”</a>. That said, Strawson does use this term about his own position. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119132363.ch27" href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119132363.ch27" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5d5e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="768" data-image-id="1*Lb4pMJchvu864gtVHQbX4Q.png" data-width="701" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Lb4pMJchvu864gtVHQbX4Q.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="4cb8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Incidentally, spiritual idealist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=592504798&source=hp&ei=L-aCZZP6K82chbIPgc2d8AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYL0PwDpSdPoul6SP5tPTo6-jYEHjFhX&ved=0ahUKEwjTzfbmiZ6DAxVNTkEAHYFmB24Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMggQLhiABBixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjgCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFZoAFZqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=592504798&source=hp&ei=L-aCZZP6K82chbIPgc2d8AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYL0PwDpSdPoul6SP5tPTo6-jYEHjFhX&ved=0ahUKEwjTzfbmiZ6DAxVNTkEAHYFmB24Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMggQLhiABBixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjgCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFZoAFZqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a> does something very similar to Baron. That is, he classes virtually all people who aren’t idealists (perhaps idealists only of his very own brand) as “materialists”…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="26af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That position may be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">panpsychism</a>, but it’s still materialist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b920"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That position may be anti-realist, but it’s still materialist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d177"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, even the positions advanced by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">David Chalmers</a> (who’s offered very strong arguments against physicalism which surpass anything written by Baron or Kastrup) are still deemed to be “materialist” by both Baron and Kastrup. And that’s simply because — again — Chalmers doesn’t bring on board (what Baron calls) “the supernatural or transcendent”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b73"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Kastrup’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22David+Chalmers+recapitulates+the+mainstream+physicalist+argument+that%2C+because+the+physical+world+is+putatively+causally-closed%2C+phenomenal+states+must+be+physical+states%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&sca_esv=592455495&source=hp&ei=0KOCZZz8A-G3hbIPj9KzoAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKx4E6214bjXnLLA8S2ycGbrau_zMj2&ved=0ahUKEwicpNbAyp2DAxXhW0EAHQ_pDHQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22David+Chalmers+recapitulates+the+mainstream+physicalist+argument+that%2C+because+the+physical+world+is+putatively+causally-closed%2C+phenomenal+states+must+be+physical+states%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IrEBIkRhdmlkIENoYWxtZXJzIHJlY2FwaXR1bGF0ZXMgdGhlIG1haW5zdHJlYW0gcGh5c2ljYWxpc3QgYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdCwgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgcGh5c2ljYWwgd29ybGQgaXMgcHV0YXRpdmVseSBjYXVzYWxseS1jbG9zZWQsIHBoZW5vbWVuYWwgc3RhdGVzIG11c3QgYmUgcGh5c2ljYWwgc3RhdGVzwqBbXS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22David+Chalmers+recapitulates+the+mainstream+physicalist+argument+that%2C+because+the+physical+world+is+putatively+causally-closed%2C+phenomenal+states+must+be+physical+states%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&sca_esv=592455495&source=hp&ei=0KOCZZz8A-G3hbIPj9KzoAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKx4E6214bjXnLLA8S2ycGbrau_zMj2&ved=0ahUKEwicpNbAyp2DAxXhW0EAHQ_pDHQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22David+Chalmers+recapitulates+the+mainstream+physicalist+argument+that%2C+because+the+physical+world+is+putatively+causally-closed%2C+phenomenal+states+must+be+physical+states%C2%A0%5B%5D.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IrEBIkRhdmlkIENoYWxtZXJzIHJlY2FwaXR1bGF0ZXMgdGhlIG1haW5zdHJlYW0gcGh5c2ljYWxpc3QgYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdCwgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgcGh5c2ljYWwgd29ybGQgaXMgcHV0YXRpdmVseSBjYXVzYWxseS1jbG9zZWQsIHBoZW5vbWVuYWwgc3RhdGVzIG11c3QgYmUgcGh5c2ljYWwgc3RhdGVzwqBbXS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="298b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“David Chalmers recapitulates the mainstream physicalist argument that, because the physical world is putatively causally-closed, phenomenal states must <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">be</span> physical states </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5191"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This basically means that if you don’t accept Kastrup’s entire worldview, then, virtually by definition, you <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be a “materialist”. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Kastrup’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/06/further-reply-to-philip-goff.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/06/further-reply-to-philip-goff.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Further reply to Philip Goff</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> And pretty much the same can be said about Baron’s position on what he calls “physicalists”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f24"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron certainly believes that most (even all?) types of panpsychism are “physicalist”, not only Galen Strawson’s version. [See Baron’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-and-its-problems-4b81fb8838e6" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-and-its-problems-4b81fb8838e6" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Panpsychism and its problems’</a>, which offers arguments which are very similar to Kastrup’s.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="d74b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Baron’s Transcendent and Supernatural Alternative</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="3496"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="580" data-image-id="1*l2PlRT1hmTs2DyvqbV_AxA.png" data-width="945" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*l2PlRT1hmTs2DyvqbV_AxA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9fc7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already stated, Gerald Baron aims his words against what he calls “physicalism”. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism+which+says+there+is+no+reality+beyond+matter+and+the+forces+which+dictate+how+matter+behaves.%22&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=DqN-ZZirIK-zhbIPwt2omA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6xHn9hOinEEmPh9Ch3Ax_-YoCoJngB&ved=0ahUKEwiY6rGc-ZWDAxWvWUEAHcIuCvMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism+which+says+there+is+no+reality+beyond+matter+and+the+forces+which+dictate+how+matter+behaves.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpcBIlRoZSBtYWluc3RyZWFtIHBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIHNjaWVuY2UgdG9kYXkgaXMgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20gd2hpY2ggc2F5cyB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyByZWFsaXR5IGJleW9uZCBtYXR0ZXIgYW5kIHRoZSBmb3JjZXMgd2hpY2ggZGljdGF0ZSBob3cgbWF0dGVyIGJlaGF2ZXMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism+which+says+there+is+no+reality+beyond+matter+and+the+forces+which+dictate+how+matter+behaves.%22&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=DqN-ZZirIK-zhbIPwt2omA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6xHn9hOinEEmPh9Ch3Ax_-YoCoJngB&ved=0ahUKEwiY6rGc-ZWDAxWvWUEAHcIuCvMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism+which+says+there+is+no+reality+beyond+matter+and+the+forces+which+dictate+how+matter+behaves.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpcBIlRoZSBtYWluc3RyZWFtIHBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIHNjaWVuY2UgdG9kYXkgaXMgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20gd2hpY2ggc2F5cyB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyByZWFsaXR5IGJleW9uZCBtYXR0ZXIgYW5kIHRoZSBmb3JjZXMgd2hpY2ggZGljdGF0ZSBob3cgbWF0dGVyIGJlaGF2ZXMuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1192"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The mainstream position of science today is physicalism which says there is no reality beyond matter and the forces which dictate how matter behaves.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3778"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron then advocates <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+%27top-down%27+understanding+of+reality+held+sway+for+all+of+human+history+except+for+the+past+hundred+to+two+hundred+years.+It+holds+that+reality+includes+more+than+matter+and+forces+and+that+consciousness+or+mind+or+thoughts+or+soul+are+real%2C+may+constitute+a+separate+part+of+reality+%28dualism%29+and+likely+pre-date+matter+and+the+controlling+laws+and%C2%A0forces.%22&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=yKd-ZfOSKMushbIP-cGtwAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX612FYU2mLcyVNhawn2DhbGd5bY6F-9&ved=0ahUKEwjzlrbd_ZWDAxVLVkEAHflgC1gQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+%27top-down%27+understanding+of+reality+held+sway+for+all+of+human+history+except+for+the+past+hundred+to+two+hundred+years.+It+holds+that+reality+includes+more+than+matter+and+forces+and+that+consciousness+or+mind+or+thoughts+or+soul+are+real%2C+may+constitute+a+separate+part+of+reality+%28dualism%29+and+likely+pre-date+matter+and+the+controlling+laws+and%C2%A0forces.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+%27top-down%27+understanding+of+reality+held+sway+for+all+of+human+history+except+for+the+past+hundred+to+two+hundred+years.+It+holds+that+reality+includes+more+than+matter+and+forces+and+that+consciousness+or+mind+or+thoughts+or+soul+are+real%2C+may+constitute+a+separate+part+of+reality+%28dualism%29+and+likely+pre-date+matter+and+the+controlling+laws+and%C2%A0forces.%22&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=yKd-ZfOSKMushbIP-cGtwAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX612FYU2mLcyVNhawn2DhbGd5bY6F-9&ved=0ahUKEwjzlrbd_ZWDAxVLVkEAHflgC1gQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22The+%27top-down%27+understanding+of+reality+held+sway+for+all+of+human+history+except+for+the+past+hundred+to+two+hundred+years.+It+holds+that+reality+includes+more+than+matter+and+forces+and+that+consciousness+or+mind+or+thoughts+or+soul+are+real%2C+may+constitute+a+separate+part+of+reality+%28dualism%29+and+likely+pre-date+matter+and+the+controlling+laws+and%C2%A0forces.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">his own alternative</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="37d4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The ‘top-down’ understanding of reality held sway for all of human history except for the past hundred to two hundred years. It holds that reality includes more than matter and forces and that consciousness or mind or thoughts or soul are real, may constitute a separate part of reality (dualism) and likely pre-date matter and the controlling laws and forces.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="efed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As can be seen, Baron firmly connects science to physicalism in the words above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2dde"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet most practicing physicists certainly don’t spend much — or even any — time talking about “reality” in their papers. In simple terms, “reality” isn’t even a term of physics. However, some popular-science writers (who’re also physicists) do indeed discuss <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reality</em> in their popular books.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2a4d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, virtually no scientist I know spends <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">time at all</em> discussing physicalism. That said, someone like the cognitive psychologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Donald Hoffman</a> does. However, not qua cognitive psychologist, but qua philosophical <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">idealist</a>. (Hoffman uses his own term for idealism — <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman#Conscious_Realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“conscious realism”</a>.)</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e187" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Baron on the Clockwork Universe</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="cbcf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="662" data-image-id="1*uVlILHhXSBpstAroIvru8w.png" data-width="590" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*uVlILHhXSBpstAroIvru8w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="4832"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald Baron’s words “there is no reality beyond matter and the forces which dictate how matter behaves” need to be untangled.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7bb6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">They can be taken to mean that there literally are no cups, trees, brains , football matches, acts of sexual intercourse, etc. — there’s only<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> matter and forces</em>. [I assume that most physicists and physicalists aren’t committed to what philosophers call <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mereological nihilism</em></a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b71f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s certainly true that cups, trees, brains, sexual intercourse, football matches, etc. aren’t the subject matter of physics. However, no physicist I know would say that such things “don’t exist”. (Some philosophers may do<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>so.) Many physicists wouldn’t even bother saying that matter and forces “determine” the nature of sexual intercourse, trees, brains, football matches, etc. However, they may say (if pushed) that sexual intercourse, brains, trees, football matches, etc. wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for matter and forces. (That would be an almost pointless statement.) Yet they still wouldn’t need to argue that (as Baron has it) “only matter and the forces exist”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c97c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron then concludes with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+results+in+a+%27clockwork%27+universe+where+all+is+determined+by+the+laws+of+nature+and+free+will+is+an+illusion%22.&sca_esv=592436497&source=hp&ei=8ZOCZcbyFrDOhbIP_umL6Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKiAXZRiVWIPeyjHo01hhEql5crMjB-&ved=0ahUKEwiGr7evu52DAxUwZ0EAHf70Ao0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22This+results+in+a+%27clockwork%27+universe+where+all+is+determined+by+the+laws+of+nature+and+free+will+is+an+illusion%22.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InQiVGhpcyByZXN1bHRzIGluIGEgJ2Nsb2Nrd29yaycgdW5pdmVyc2Ugd2hlcmUgYWxsIGlzIGRldGVybWluZWQgYnkgdGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgbmF0dXJlIGFuZCBmcmVlIHdpbGwgaXMgYW4gaWxsdXNpb24iLkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22This+results+in+a+%27clockwork%27+universe+where+all+is+determined+by+the+laws+of+nature+and+free+will+is+an+illusion%22.&sca_esv=592436497&source=hp&ei=8ZOCZcbyFrDOhbIP_umL6Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYKiAXZRiVWIPeyjHo01hhEql5crMjB-&ved=0ahUKEwiGr7evu52DAxUwZ0EAHf70Ao0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22This+results+in+a+%27clockwork%27+universe+where+all+is+determined+by+the+laws+of+nature+and+free+will+is+an+illusion%22.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6InQiVGhpcyByZXN1bHRzIGluIGEgJ2Nsb2Nrd29yaycgdW5pdmVyc2Ugd2hlcmUgYWxsIGlzIGRldGVybWluZWQgYnkgdGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgbmF0dXJlIGFuZCBmcmVlIHdpbGwgaXMgYW4gaWxsdXNpb24iLkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6f0f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This results in a ‘clockwork’ universe where all is determined by the laws of nature and free will is an illusion.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is incredible.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ffa8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron seems to believe that physicalists and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">physicalist</em> physicists (if there are any) are still stuck in the early 19th century.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="373b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Physicists have rejected large parts of the “clockwork universe” analogy since the 19th century, and even well before that. (This entry on the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe#" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe#" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Clockwork universe’</a> doesn’t mention anyone or anything after <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gottfried Leibniz</a>.) They’ve certainly done so since Albert Einstein’s work on relativity and the quantum revolution of the 1920s.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="33da"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is Baron claiming that physicalists (if not physicists themselves) have ignored all this, and are still in pre-1920s mode? Yet I don’t know of a single physicalist who believes in the clockwork universe as it was originally understood in the 17th and 18th centuries. [See my last essay<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/spiritual-anti-materialists-believe-materialists-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century-1ef44ddc26dd" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/spiritual-anti-materialists-believe-materialists-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century-1ef44ddc26dd" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Spiritual Anti-Materialists Believe Materialists Are Stuck in the 19th Century’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="96a5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So all this inevitably leads to the following question:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="4bcd"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Has Gerald R. Baron actually read any physicalists (i.e., other than Galen Strawson)?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f30c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is Baron either <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote#Tilting_at_windmills" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote#Tilting_at_windmills" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tilting at windmills</a> or constructing straw targets here?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7016"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, is all this the result of him never having read any contemporary (or even any 20th century) physicalists?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="18c0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s certainly the case that Baron (along with other anti-materialists) rarely (if ever) quotes contemporary physicalists — at least not when when they argue for physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="026d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Bernardo Kastrup does tackle the arguments of physicalists and other contemporary philosophers. And then often abuses them.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6bcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps Baron holds a similar position to, for example, the British philosopher and ethicist Mary Midgley<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(who will have read many physicalists).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c24d" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Mary Midgley on Scientific Reductionism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="312f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="391" data-image-id="1*9KYea7CU6V3SkU6yxZ3X-A.png" data-width="618" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*9KYea7CU6V3SkU6yxZ3X-A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="814d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the details to be tackled below, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Mary Midgley</a> (1918–2018) was actually talking about what she called “reductionism”.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>That said, Gerald<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Baron did tell us that<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> “</strong>physicalism [] says there is no reality beyond matter and the forces which dictate how matter behaves” — a stance which can be seen to lead to reductionism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c1c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Midgley’s words on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#In_science" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#In_science" rel="noopener" target="_blank">scientific reductionism</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(i.e., not actually on physicalism/materialism as such) can be found in her article <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/374840a0.pdf" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/374840a0.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Reductive Megalomania’</a>, which itself appears in the book, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Nature_s_Imagination/L7vaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Nature_s_Imagination/L7vaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Nature’s Imagination: The Frontiers of Scientific Vision</em></a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fc29"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Midgley asked the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/TxmJbMpSvEEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Winberg,+How+will+the+language+of+physics+convey+the+meaning+of+%27Sunday%27%3F+or+%27home%27+or+%27allowed%27+or+%27prison%27%3F+or+%27at+last%27%3F+or+even+%27George%27%3F%22&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/TxmJbMpSvEEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Winberg,+How+will+the+language+of+physics+convey+the+meaning+of+%27Sunday%27%3F+or+%27home%27+or+%27allowed%27+or+%27prison%27%3F+or+%27at+last%27%3F+or+even+%27George%27%3F%22&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following questions</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6c43"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“‘What, for instance, about a factual statement like ‘George was allowed home from prison at last on Saturday?’ How will the language of physics convey the meaning of ‘Sunday’? or ‘home’ or ‘allowed’ or ‘prison’? or ‘at last’? or even ‘George’?’”</i></span></blockquote><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="33fb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="447" data-image-id="1*d08-CsPr1OUpwDIh3nboeg.png" data-width="852" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*d08-CsPr1OUpwDIh3nboeg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="314e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American theoretical physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Steven Weinberg</a> (who died in 2021) responded to this passage by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/Y_Q9et-9Ar4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22this+criticism+would+strike+home+if+there+were+physicists+who+were+trying+to+use+physics+for+such+a+purpose,+but+I+don%27t+know+of%C2%A0any%22.&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/Y_Q9et-9Ar4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22this+criticism+would+strike+home+if+there+were+physicists+who+were+trying+to+use+physics+for+such+a+purpose,+but+I+don%27t+know+of%C2%A0any%22.&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">saying that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9d30"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[t]<i>his criticism would strike home if there were physicists who were trying to use physics for such a purpose, but I don’t know of any”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b88f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps readers should give Midgley the benefit of the doubt here and assume that she must have been discussing (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">possible reductionism</em>. In other words, perhaps Midgley simply meant that reductionism <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">could</em> go down this dangerous rabbit hole if scientists — and perhaps the public too — weren’t careful.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0578"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does this mean, then, that Midgley wasn’t actually claiming that any physicists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">have</em> attempted to reduce statements like “George was allowed home from prison at last on Saturday” to physics? Was she simply arguing that this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">could</em> be the case if we don’t watch out?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4301"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Alternatively seen, it might have been a simple <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reductio ad absurdum</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>on Midgley’s part.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5fbf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As it is, it can be doubted that these diplomatic interpretations of her words are correct. Indeed, Midgley herself didn’t explain why she believed that some — or even any — physicists would want to reduce the sentence “George was allowed home from prison at last on Saturday” to physics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4095"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And why didn’t she name any names?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="888b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Was it because this is precisely how many self-styled anti-reductionists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">do</em> see (what they take to be) reductionism (with its, to use E.O. Wilson’s words, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.wtf.tw/ref/wilson.pdf" href="https://www.wtf.tw/ref/wilson.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“hissing suffix”</a>)?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c348"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Firstly, no physicist would ever even attempt to reduce the sentence “George was allowed home from prison at last on Saturday” (or even the referents<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>of any of the words within it) to physics. That simply because that sentence and its contents aren’t in the domain of physics in the first place.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3333"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet that last statement about not reducing “George was allowed home from prison at last on Saturday?” to physics isn’t only an expression of what <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-</em>reductionists would warn physicists against. No physicist <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em> would deem this area to be the domain of physics. Indeed, the very idea of reducing the event (let alone the previous sentence) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">George being let out of prison</em>, George himself, a prison, Saturday, etc. to physics is really quite ridiculous.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="32e1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Steven Weinberg himself spotted the problem with Midgley’s position.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cb38"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although Weinberg didn’t state that Midgley held this position herself, Weinberg did <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/c91hEc8tms4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22George+behaves+the+way+he+does+because+he+has+a+soul+that+is+governed+by+laws+quite+unrelated+to+those+that+govern+particles+or+thunderstorms%22&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Facing_Up/c91hEc8tms4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22George+behaves+the+way+he+does+because+he+has+a+soul+that+is+governed+by+laws+quite+unrelated+to+those+that+govern+particles+or+thunderstorms%22&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">claim that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6480"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“many of our fellow citizens think that George behaves the way he does because he has a soul that is governed by laws quite unrelated to those that govern particles or thunderstorms”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9bd6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What now needs to be said is that many non-religious philosophers and laypersons <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">do</em> take this position without also believing in a soul (at least as the soul is seen in various religions). That is, all (or at least most) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">anti-physicalists</a> do take the position expressed by Weinberg directly above. However, in order to see that all the reader needs to do is take out the word “soul”, and substitute it with the word “mind”, “consciousness” or “person”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9f29"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So (again) who, exactly, was Midgley arguing against, and warning us about?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0bc7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps it was the English molecular biologist and neuroscientist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Francis Crick</a> (1916–2004).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9021"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More accurately, perhaps it was a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very-well-known</em> passage from Crick which has been quoted innumerable times. (Nearly always negatively or critically.) That infamous often-quoted passage can be found in Crick’s 1994 book, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astonishing-Hypothesis-Scientific-Search-Soul/dp/0684801582" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astonishing-Hypothesis-Scientific-Search-Soul/dp/0684801582" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="445a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So here goes:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ec1e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9dc2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In fact, if readers Google the passage above, they’ll see there are 19 pages (or more) of links (with 10 entries on each page — that’s 190 separate links) to papers, articles, essays, books, etc. which quote Crick’s words. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=You%27,+your+joys+and+your+sorrows,+your+memories+and+your+ambitions,+your+sense+of+personal+identity+and+free+will,+are+in+fact+no+more+than+the+behavior+of+a+vast+assembly+of+nerve+cells+and+their+associated+molecules.%22&ei=wzBFY9XoIbeWhbIPn4GHMA&start=180&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiV1s-a6Nf6AhU3S0EAHZ_AAQY4oAEQ8tMDegQIBRAV&biw=1536&bih=743&dpr=1.25" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=You%27,+your+joys+and+your+sorrows,+your+memories+and+your+ambitions,+your+sense+of+personal+identity+and+free+will,+are+in+fact+no+more+than+the+behavior+of+a+vast+assembly+of+nerve+cells+and+their+associated+molecules.%22&ei=wzBFY9XoIbeWhbIPn4GHMA&start=180&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiV1s-a6Nf6AhU3S0EAHZ_AAQY4oAEQ8tMDegQIBRAV&biw=1536&bih=743&dpr=1.25" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, guess what, Mary Midgley herself <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">did</em> indeed refer (more than once) to this passage from Crick.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d8a2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, she did so in her book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Are-Illusion-Heretics-Mary-Midgley/dp/1844657922" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Are-Illusion-Heretics-Mary-Midgley/dp/1844657922" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Are You an Illusion?</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">.</em> What’s more, Midgley also referred to it in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Guardian, New York Times </em>and<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> Philosophy Now. </em>[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/15/in-praise-of-mary-midgley" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/15/in-praise-of-mary-midgley" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/23/books/science-and-selfishness.html" href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/23/books/science-and-selfishness.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/140/Mary_Midgley_1919-2018" href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/140/Mary_Midgley_1919-2018" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fc80"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it can be said that even in those infamous words above, Crick isn’t literally advising reducing “‘you’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will” to the brain, neurons, biochemistry or to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anything</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">else…</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="089d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But that’s another subject entirely.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="e362"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="f554"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(*)</strong> See my<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/p/e6ad67909398" href="https://medium.com/p/e6ad67909398" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Francis Crick’s Deliberately Provocative Reductionism’</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(**)</strong> See my last essay,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/spiritual-anti-materialists-believe-materialists-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century-1ef44ddc26dd" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/spiritual-anti-materialists-believe-materialists-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century-1ef44ddc26dd" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Spiritual Anti-Materialists Believe Materialists Are Stuck in the 19th Century’</a>. See also my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/gerald-r-barons-religious-crusade-against-materialism-963b7109e870" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/gerald-r-barons-religious-crusade-against-materialism-963b7109e870" target="_blank">‘Gerald R. Baron’s Religious “Crusade” Against Materialism’</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-34114501329198483522024-01-12T23:27:00.000-08:002024-01-12T23:27:33.665-08:00“Spiritual” Anti-Materialists Believe Materialists Are Stuck in the 19th Century<p><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The portrayal of both materialists and physicalists by particular types of anti-materialist (e.g., spiritual idealists, New Agers, religious commentators, etc.) makes it seem as if materialists are still stuck in the 19th century. In other words, their portrayals make it seem as if all the materialists of the 20th and 21st centuries were — and still are — either ignorant of 20th century physics, or that they’ve simply ignored it. Yet this anti-materialist take on materialism and physicalism will seem bizarre the moment you actually read contemporary materialists and physicalists. So what’s behind this portrayal?</span></strong></p><section class="section section--body" name="011a"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ffb9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*jy6ctjmu0bwAJ9F-wP7Uog.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*jy6ctjmu0bwAJ9F-wP7Uog.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a3b5"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Anti-Materialists Are Fixated on 19th Century Materialism</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Those Artfully-Selected Quotes From Artfully-Selected Physicists</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Materialism and Scientific Realism</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="40bd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the following essay, the words “materialism” and “physicalism” are treated as synonyms. That’s mainly because all the “spiritual” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-materialists</em> mentioned in it also treat them as synonyms. More specifically, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a> (who’ll be discussed in the second part of this essay) never distinguishes physicalism<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>from materialism. What’s more, he says <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very similar</em> things about physicalism and physicalists as the spiritual idealist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=VQd_ZbDXB42li-gPw5eWwA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8VZZWCwa_3IeJKdQgfahd20-ZaDMn8&ved=0ahUKEwjw1Yrt2JaDAxWN0gIHHcOLBfgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMggQLhiABBixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjCB1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFQoAFQqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=VQd_ZbDXB42li-gPw5eWwA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8VZZWCwa_3IeJKdQgfahd20-ZaDMn8&ved=0ahUKEwjw1Yrt2JaDAxWN0gIHHcOLBfgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwMggQLhiABBixAzIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjCB1AAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFQoAFQqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a> says about materialism and materialists. In addition, it would take a separate essay to fully distinguish these two terms.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8afd" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Anti-Materialists Are Fixated on 19th Century Materialism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="55ba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="368" data-image-id="1*56ay7Hj734DyvPU4njk9sQ.png" data-width="716" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*56ay7Hj734DyvPU4njk9sQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1a75"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anti-materialists (e.g., <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=igV_ZY2nLt2yhbIPsKuU2A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8TmkperQONz6uTqOPPt3g0APIM0UJ9&ved=0ahUKEwiNlMKS15aDAxVdWUEAHbAVBfsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIESKELUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAYUBoAGFAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=igV_ZY2nLt2yhbIPsKuU2A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8TmkperQONz6uTqOPPt3g0APIM0UJ9&ved=0ahUKEwiNlMKS15aDAxVdWUEAHbAVBfsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIESKELUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAYUBoAGFAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">spiritual idealists</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22New+Agers%22&sca_esv=591670222&ei=VQV_ZcbkMcavhbIP5YG5oAY&ved=0ahUKEwiG46L51paDAxXGV0EAHeVADmQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22New+Agers%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiCyJOZXcgQWdlcnMiMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jWIVCqBlivG3ABeAGQAQCYAXKgAYsCqgEDMi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDxAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsAMYCsICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAgYQABgHGB7CAggQABgHGB4YCsICCBAAGAcYHhgP4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22New+Agers%22&sca_esv=591670222&ei=VQV_ZcbkMcavhbIP5YG5oAY&ved=0ahUKEwiG46L51paDAxXGV0EAHeVADmQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22New+Agers%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiCyJOZXcgQWdlcnMiMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jWIVCqBlivG3ABeAGQAQCYAXKgAYsCqgEDMi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDxAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsAMYCsICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAgYQABgHGB7CAggQABgHGB4YCsICCBAAGAcYHhgP4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">New Agers</a>,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>religious commentators, etc.) conflate<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>materialism with what many materialists believed in the 19th century and even before that — or, at the most, up until (roughly) the 1920s (i.e., before the rise of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">theory of relativity</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" rel="noopener" target="_blank">quantum mechanics</a>). In other words, these particular anti-materialists have a view of materialism that might have been correct in the early 20th century — or well before that. Yet, by the 1920s, this stereotype of materialism was no longer the case when it came to most materialists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b1d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this largely boils down to anti-materialists claiming that materialists believe that all matter — and indeed everything else — is what they call <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=materialism+and+%22tangible+stuff%22&sca_esv=591610561&ei=b59-Ze_1KayuhbIP8p60wAc&ved=0ahUKEwiv6bfi9ZWDAxUsV0EAHXIPDXgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=materialism+and+%22tangible+stuff%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIG1hdGVyaWFsaXNtIGFuZCAidGFuZ2libGUgc3R1ZmYiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUipMVDABliHHHABeACQAQCYAVugAY8KqgECMTi4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABgHGB4YsAMYCsICCBAAGIAEGLADwgIHEAAYHhiwA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLADwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQIRigARjDBOIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=materialism+and+%22tangible+stuff%22&sca_esv=591610561&ei=b59-Ze_1KayuhbIP8p60wAc&ved=0ahUKEwiv6bfi9ZWDAxUsV0EAHXIPDXgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=materialism+and+%22tangible+stuff%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIG1hdGVyaWFsaXNtIGFuZCAidGFuZ2libGUgc3R1ZmYiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUipMVDABliHHHABeACQAQCYAVugAY8KqgECMTi4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABgHGB4YsAMYCsICCBAAGIAEGLADwgIHEAAYHhiwA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGIYDGLADwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQIRigARjDBOIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“tangible stuff”</a>. Indeed, the frequent claim used to be — and often still is — that materialists believe that everything is made up of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=materialism+and+%22hard+particles%22&sca_esv=591610561&source=hp&ei=qZ9-ZY3VF6-ghbIPgIOD8AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6tuXtIgAMnIpYjdGcJyIEAwaL8lE8r&ved=0ahUKEwjNzfn99ZWDAxUvUEEAHYDBAB4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=materialism+and+%22hard+particles%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSBhbmQgImhhcmQgcGFydGljbGVzIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogRI3TlQAFiKNHAAeACQAQCYAU2gAfYJqgECMTm4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYHhgKwgIKEAAYCBgHGB4YD8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYD&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=materialism+and+%22hard+particles%22&sca_esv=591610561&source=hp&ei=qZ9-ZY3VF6-ghbIPgIOD8AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6tuXtIgAMnIpYjdGcJyIEAwaL8lE8r&ved=0ahUKEwjNzfn99ZWDAxUvUEEAHYDBAB4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=materialism+and+%22hard+particles%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSBhbmQgImhhcmQgcGFydGljbGVzIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogRI3TlQAFiKNHAAeACQAQCYAU2gAfYJqgECMTm4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYHhgKwgIKEAAYCBgHGB4YD8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYD&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“hard particles”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6bcf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet all that began to change with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_physics" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_physics" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">field physics</a> in the 19th century — which nearly all materialists (who’re also naturalists) almost immediately took on board. Indeed, even a basic Wikipedia entry (which also helpfully distinguishes materialism from physicalism) states <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Materialism+is+closely+related+to+physicalism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+view+that+all+that+exists+is+ultimately+physical.+Philosophical+physicalism+has+evolved+from+materialism+with+the+theories+of+the+physical+sciences+to+incorporate+more+sophisticated+notions+of+physicality+than+mere+ordinary+matter+%28e.g.+spacetime%2C+physical+energies+and+forces%2C+and+dark+matter%29.+Thus%2C+some+prefer+the+term+physicalism+to+materialism%2C+while+others+use+the+terms+as+if+they+were+synonymous.%22&sca_esv=591610561&source=hp&ei=8Z9-Za_aNaOChbIP5PCT-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6uAae9o96mgkTBjsetN2hymFB9BjHD&ved=0ahUKEwjvlsKg9pWDAxUjQUEAHWT4BJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Materialism+is+closely+related+to+physicalism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+view+that+all+that+exists+is+ultimately+physical.+Philosophical+physicalism+has+evolved+from+materialism+with+the+theories+of+the+physical+sciences+to+incorporate+more+sophisticated+notions+of+physicality+than+mere+ordinary+matter+%28e.g.+spacetime%2C+physical+energies+and+forces%2C+and+dark+matter%29.+Thus%2C+some+prefer+the+term+physicalism+to+materialism%2C+while+others+use+the+terms+as+if+they+were+synonymous.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Materialism+is+closely+related+to+physicalism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+view+that+all+that+exists+is+ultimately+physical.+Philosophical+physicalism+has+evolved+from+materialism+with+the+theories+of+the+physical+sciences+to+incorporate+more+sophisticated+notions+of+physicality+than+mere+ordinary+matter+%28e.g.+spacetime%2C+physical+energies+and+forces%2C+and+dark+matter%29.+Thus%2C+some+prefer+the+term+physicalism+to+materialism%2C+while+others+use+the+terms+as+if+they+were+synonymous.%22&sca_esv=591610561&source=hp&ei=8Z9-Za_aNaOChbIP5PCT-Ak&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6uAae9o96mgkTBjsetN2hymFB9BjHD&ved=0ahUKEwjvlsKg9pWDAxUjQUEAHWT4BJ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Materialism+is+closely+related+to+physicalism%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+view+that+all+that+exists+is+ultimately+physical.+Philosophical+physicalism+has+evolved+from+materialism+with+the+theories+of+the+physical+sciences+to+incorporate+more+sophisticated+notions+of+physicality+than+mere+ordinary+matter+%28e.g.+spacetime%2C+physical+energies+and+forces%2C+and+dark+matter%29.+Thus%2C+some+prefer+the+term+physicalism+to+materialism%2C+while+others+use+the+terms+as+if+they+were+synonymous.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d3fc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Materialism is closely related to physicalism — the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, some prefer the term physicalism to materialism, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="451c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So why did naturalists and materialists take these changes in physics on board?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5b78"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It was largely because such people weren’t mindlessly committed to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">tangible stuff</em> — or to anything else like that. In fact, they were committed to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the findings and theories of physics</em> (as well as the other hard sciences). And physicists discovered fields (other than gravity) in the 19th century. [See<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)#History" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29#History" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1cd6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, when Albert Einstein showed that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=matter+and+energy+are+interchangeable&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=2aB-ZeLyMoSchbIPz5CMkAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6u6YiU7J4BFOqe1z_ts7HKM4QbFaum&ved=0ahUKEwiiw4-P95WDAxUETkEAHU8IA1IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=matter+and+energy+are+interchangeable&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiVtYXR0ZXIgYW5kIGVuZXJneSBhcmUgaW50ZXJjaGFuZ2VhYmxlMgUQABiABDIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jHCVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFSoAFSqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=matter+and+energy+are+interchangeable&sca_esv=591615446&source=hp&ei=2aB-ZeLyMoSchbIPz5CMkAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX6u6YiU7J4BFOqe1z_ts7HKM4QbFaum&ved=0ahUKEwiiw4-P95WDAxUETkEAHU8IA1IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=matter+and+energy+are+interchangeable&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiVtYXR0ZXIgYW5kIGVuZXJneSBhcmUgaW50ZXJjaGFuZ2VhYmxlMgUQABiABDIIEAAYFhgeGA8yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0jHCVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFSoAFSqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“matter and energy are interchangeable”</a>, most materialists immediately took that on board too. Thus, as an obvious consequence of that, most materialists also came to believe that energy — not matter — was (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_materia" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_materia" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prima materia</em></a>. Or at least they came to believe that matter is a form of energy…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1991"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, something similar occurred with the rise of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">quantum field theory</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="258d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, many materialists took quantum field theory on board. In other words (as with Einstein’s equation of matter and energy), materialists came to see that fields — not energy — are (again, as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prima materia.</em> Therefore, they also came to believe that energy is a property of such fields.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d90"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, it must be stressed here that even if the technical details of the physics are sometimes wrong or misinterpreted by materialists (that includes my own accounts), the important point here is that although there were (radical) shifts in parts of physics, most materialists still took on board these new findings, commitments and theories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="626a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So which materialists and physicalists, exactly, are these self-styled “anti-materialists” talking about?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0f52"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, does this anachronistic stance on materialism explain why spiritual idealists, New-Agers, Jungians, people like Deepak Chopra, etc. rarely (if ever) quote any contemporary materialists and physicalists, let alone tackle the detail of their arguments? </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note</strong>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> Instead, they place a lot of emphasis on some artfully-selected quotes from Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and other physicists (usually writing in the period long after the 1920s).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9a01" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Those Artfully-Selected Quotes From Artfully-Selected Physicists</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a0ee"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="677" data-image-id="1*rN-8oJfOTECrmC-ZI236KA.png" data-width="1553" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*rN-8oJfOTECrmC-ZI236KA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a07c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Much<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">-</strong>quoted passages such as the following (from Werner Heisenberg's book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Science-Classics/dp/0141182156" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Science-Classics/dp/0141182156" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science</em></a>) are used to advance the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Heisenberg-was-an-idealist-and-an-anti-materialist</em> position:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7742"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[The world of] <i>atoms or the elementary particles </i>[is one of]<i> possibilities, rather than one of things or facts.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4e3b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Apart from that passage (at least in itself) being neither a direct nor an indirect argument for idealism (or for anything <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+R.+Baron+-+%22transcendent%22&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=xgh_ZZWOK8TJkwWw0afACQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8W1vDiPgPiSWSWIQKdS3SY-gNvjr5T&ved=0ahUKEwiViaid2paDAxXE5KQKHbDoCZgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gerald+R.+Baron+-+%22transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBHZXJhbGQgUi4gQmFyb24gLSAidHJhbnNjZW5kZW50IjIIEAAYgAQYogRIpmxQAFjfXHAAeACQAQCYAawBoAGZEqoBBTE0LjEwuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYRhj5AcICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAggQABgIGAcYHsICCBAAGAUYBxgewgIHEAAYgAQYDcICChAAGAgYBxgeGA_CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+R.+Baron+-+%22transcendent%22&sca_esv=591670222&source=hp&ei=xgh_ZZWOK8TJkwWw0afACQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX8W1vDiPgPiSWSWIQKdS3SY-gNvjr5T&ved=0ahUKEwiViaid2paDAxXE5KQKHbDoCZgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gerald+R.+Baron+-+%22transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiBHZXJhbGQgUi4gQmFyb24gLSAidHJhbnNjZW5kZW50IjIIEAAYgAQYogRIpmxQAFjfXHAAeACQAQCYAawBoAGZEqoBBTE0LjEwuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYRhj5AcICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAggQABgIGAcYHsICCBAAGAUYBxgewgIHEAAYgAQYDcICChAAGAgYBxgeGA_CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“transcendent”</a>), we can move on to other quotes here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="23ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the anti-materialist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a>, who wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/why-you-cant-always-believe-your-senses-d511360397cd" href="https://deepakchopra.medium.com/why-you-cant-always-believe-your-senses-d511360397cd" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="512e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“As Heisenberg put it, electrons and other particles are not real but exist only as ideas or concepts. They become real when someone asks questions about Nature, and depending on which question you ask, Nature obligingly supplies an answer.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3bdc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Elsewhere, we have <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantum-phenomena-require-conscious-observers" href="https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantum-phenomena-require-conscious-observers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this passage</a> in the website <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/" href="https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Science & Nonduality</em></a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="aaba"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This phenomenon led physicist Werner Heisenberg to write in 1958, ‘The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them </i>[]<i> is impossible.’ </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="50da"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet no one is denying that Werner Heisenberg did indeed castigate <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">19th-centur</em>y materialism (he refers to the 19th century below), as well as the materialism which existed <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">immediately before</em> the “quantum revolution” of the 1920s.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a4ad"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, Heisenberg put his position very simply when he wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Science-Classics/dp/0141182156" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Science-Classics/dp/0141182156" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="be71"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory has led the physicists away from the simple materialistic views that prevailed in the natural science of the nineteenth century.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5152"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, elsewhere, Heisenberg wrote the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111185.Physics_and_Philosophy" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111185.Physics_and_Philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d4d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible </i>[]<i> atoms are not things.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0c21"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[These words are also <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">often</em> quoted — especially in the “spiritual” memes found on Facebook and social media generally.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d82d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, many contemporary anti-materialists conflate materialism itself with 19th-century materialism. Heisenberg himself, on the other hand, had two specific things in mind when he made his critical remarks:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="4a52"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(1) 19th-century materialism (i.e., as a whole). <br />(2) Soviet dialectical materialism.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0eff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Heisenberg quoted one Soviet <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism" href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">dialectical materialist</a> and physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/01/archives/blokhintsev-dead-a-russian-physicist-directed-construction-of.html" href="https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/01/archives/blokhintsev-dead-a-russian-physicist-directed-construction-of.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dmitry Blochinzev</a> in the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://archive.org/stream/ost-physics-heisenberg-physicsphilosophy/Heisenberg-PhysicsPhilosophy_djvu.txt" href="https://archive.org/stream/ost-physics-heisenberg-physicsphilosophy/Heisenberg-PhysicsPhilosophy_djvu.txt" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ba63"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> ‘Among the different idealistic trends in contemporary physics the so-called Copenhagen school is the most reactionary. The present article is devoted to the unmasking of the idealistic and agnostic speculations of this school on the basic problems of quantum physics.’ </i>[]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3293"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, according to this dialectical materialist (i.e., Blochinzev), idealism is “reactionary”. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (in his eyes) was idealist. Therefore, the Copenhagen interpretation was also <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reactionary</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2489"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Blochinzev’s main problem was that the Copenhagen interpretation didn’t abide by the dictates of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">dialectical materialism</a>. Thus, Blochinzev quoted <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Lenin</a> to back up his own position. And that passage, in turn, was quoted by Heisenberg himself. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://archive.org/stream/ost-physics-heisenberg-physicsphilosophy/Heisenberg-PhysicsPhilosophy_djvu.txt" href="https://archive.org/stream/ost-physics-heisenberg-physicsphilosophy/Heisenberg-PhysicsPhilosophy_djvu.txt" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thus</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d1c4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[]</span><i> ‘However marvellous, from the point of view of the common human intellect, the transformation of the unweighable ether into weighable material, however strange the electrons lack of any but electromagnetic mass, however unusual the restriction of the mechanical laws of motion to but one realm of natural phenomena and their subordination to the deeper laws of electromagnetic phenomena, and so on — all this is but another confirmation of dialectical materialism.’</i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[]</span><i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="012f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As some readers will see, this almost reads like a religious tract which displays its loyal adherence to dialectical materialism. Indeed, Heisenberg himself picked up on this when he responded <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/Heisenberg,%20Werner%20-%20Physics%20and%20philosophy.pdf" href="https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/Heisenberg,%20Werner%20-%20Physics%20and%20philosophy.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">by saying</a> that this defence of dialectical materialism</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7fc9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“seems to degrade </i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[quantum theory]</span><i> to a staged trial in which the verdict is known before the trial had begun”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f789"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So readers can see why Heisenberg (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">had in in for</em> materialism if his main and most influential experience of it (at least at one point) was Soviet dialectical materialism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="590f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[Even as late as 2005, an article called ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm" href="https://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics — in defence of Marxism’</a> was published in the website <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.marxist.com/" href="https://www.marxist.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">In Defence of Marxism</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="64f8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, it wasn’t only the Soviet dialectical materialists and 19th-century materialists whom Heisenberg had his eyes on.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8ccc" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Materialism and Scientific Realism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="74ab"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="591" data-image-id="1*4FnPIO2HjBc0H_EHGCyNWQ.png" data-width="791" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4FnPIO2HjBc0H_EHGCyNWQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Werner Heisenberg was certainly against scientific realism — or at least he was against what he called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZeAI_rzR1xcC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22dogmatic+realism%22&source=bl&ots=exmc5taAs-&sig=ACfU3U0fvMqK2Y1sKg3D67O-TCnhVEeZKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK4JLJtJH4AhXITsAKHeGZBIwQ6AF6BAgaEAM#v=onepage&q=Werner%20Heisenberg%20on%20%22dogmatic%20realism%22&f=false" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZeAI_rzR1xcC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Werner+Heisenberg+on+%22dogmatic+realism%22&source=bl&ots=exmc5taAs-&sig=ACfU3U0fvMqK2Y1sKg3D67O-TCnhVEeZKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK4JLJtJH4AhXITsAKHeGZBIwQ6AF6BAgaEAM#v=onepage&q=Werner%20Heisenberg%20on%20%22dogmatic%20realism%22&f=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“dogmatic realism”</a>. And it’s here that (at least to my 21st-century mind) Heisenberg appeared to conflate materialism with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">scientific realism</a>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d5e9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What is the link between materialism and scientific realism?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7303"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Heisenberg might well have believed that materialism <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> lead to scientific realism, or that scientific realism must lead to materialism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2737"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So do contemporary anti-materialists also view materialism as being a subset of scientific realism? (Idealists like Bernardo Kastrup certainly tie materialism and realism very closely together — see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271" href="https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="51c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In specific reference to Albert Einstein, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Max von Laue</a> and (ironically enough) Erwin Schrödinger, Heisenberg <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/for-and-against-the-copenhagen-interpretation.989028/#:~:text=As%20Werner%20Heisenberg%20remarks%20in,to%20the%20ontology%20of%20materialism." href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/for-and-against-the-copenhagen-interpretation.989028/#:~:text=As%20Werner%20Heisenberg%20remarks%20in,to%20the%20ontology%20of%20materialism." rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2031"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[A]<i>ll the opponents of the Copenhagen interpretation do agree on one point. It would, in their view, be desirable to return to the reality concept of classical physics or, to use a more general philosophic term, to the ontology of materialism. They would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="63a7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, on Heisenberg’s reading, materialism is a kind of scientific realism. And scientific realists believe in what’s often called an “objective world”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f862"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, in Heisenberg’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Modern-Science/dp/0061305499" href="https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Modern-Science/dp/0061305499" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bce5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Quantum theory does not allow a completely objective description of nature.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="98d2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, it’s true that materialism (being a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> position) needn’t always be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Views_on_Methodological_Naturalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29#Views_on_Methodological_Naturalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">naturalistic</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>in nature. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://dailynous.com/2019/01/02/naturalism-science-possibility-philosophy/" href="https://dailynous.com/2019/01/02/naturalism-science-possibility-philosophy/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> That is, it needn’t be cognisant of the sciences and their findings. Indeed, in this case, clearly such scientific realists were rejecting the findings of physics — or at least they were rejecting the Copenhagen <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">interpretation</em> of quantum theory.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This meant that the physicists who were also scientific realists (just like contemporary <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048402.2011.587439?journalCode=rajp20#:~:text=WHAT%20IS%20ANALYTIC%20METAPHYSICS%20FOR%3F,-James%20Maclaurin%20and&text=We%20divide%20analytic%20metaphysics%20into,claim%20has%20no%20observable%20consequences." href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048402.2011.587439?journalCode=rajp20#:~:text=WHAT%20IS%20ANALYTIC%20METAPHYSICS%20FOR%3F,-James%20Maclaurin%20and&text=We%20divide%20analytic%20metaphysics%20into,claim%20has%20no%20observable%20consequences." rel="noopener" target="_blank">“analytic metaphysicians”</a>) believed that their personal <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophies</em> could trump the findings of physics. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Lowe_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Lowe_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">E.J. Lowe</a> arguing for the the autonomy of metaphysics <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-bloomsbury-companion-to-analytic-philosophy-1/ch22-metaphysics" href="https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-bloomsbury-companion-to-analytic-philosophy-1/ch22-metaphysics" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here.</a>]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> In more clear terms, because the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory — and perhaps<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>quantum mechanics itself — went against both “classical physics” and scientific realism, Einstein, von Laue, Schrödinger and Bohm (among others) believed that it must be wrong in some way. Thus, Heisenberg believed that their prior philosophies were telling them that the Copenhagen interpretation <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be wrong!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="697d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is how Heisenberg himself <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.academia.edu/22957901/Physics_and_Philosophy" href="https://www.academia.edu/22957901/Physics_and_Philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">put it</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7fd7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[] <i>Einstein hoped that beneath the chaos of the quantum might lie hidden a scaled-down version of the well-behaved, familiar world of deterministic dynamics.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b69"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yes, the above is an indirect reference to those famous <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank">hidden variables</a>. Or, in Heisenberg’s own words again, a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://zlibrary-asia.se/book/1073947/912996?dsource=recommend" href="https://zlibrary-asia.se/book/1073947/912996?dsource=recommend" rel="noopener" target="_blank">reference to</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="51ad"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“a deeper level of hidden dynamical variables that effect the system and bestow upon it merely an apparent indeterminism and unpredictability”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="82af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Heisenberg’s problem<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>with materialism also (at least partly) stemmed from the accounts of what was deemed to be (philosophically) “objective” in physics. And, of course, any talk of what is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objective</em> has been tied to the philosophical position of scientific realism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="36d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Heisenberg himself also wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111185.Physics_and_Philosophy" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111185.Physics_and_Philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5a75"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b77a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So this passage from Heisenberg won’t do much work for contemporary anti-materialists. That’s because Heisenberg was clearly restricting his claims to “the atomic range”. Spiritual idealists, New Agers, etc., on the other hand, apply their positions to the entire universe and literally everything in it. In other words, such people have “extrapolated” what Heisenberg and other well-known physicists said about the atomic range into the “the world around us”. Indeed, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" rel="noopener" target="_blank">quantum entanglement</a> is a good example of this New-Age, Jungian, etc. phenomenon. [See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/carl-jungs-wild-analogies-synchronicity-and-quantum-physics-072fbf5884f0" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/carl-jungs-wild-analogies-synchronicity-and-quantum-physics-072fbf5884f0" target="_blank">‘Carl Jung’s Wild Analogies: Synchronicity and Quantum Physics’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8ca0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And this kind of thing was precisely what the much-quoted Heisenberg warned against.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9972"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To sum up.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b28c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With the rise of quantum physics and relativity theory in the 1920s, many physicists (not only Heisenberg) came to believe that the nature of matter (or the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">concept</em> of matter) had been fundamentally altered…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9150"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And so too did most materialists, as well as all physicalists!</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="521a"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="bd78"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the above has led on to the particular case of the Medium anti-physicalist writer <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a>, whose words will be tackled in the next part of this essay.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="3540"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6ad4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Note:</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2500"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="488" data-image-id="1*Hw3Mf8sxTwcMrXFd3MOmWQ.png" data-width="485" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Hw3Mf8sxTwcMrXFd3MOmWQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Bernardo Kastrup</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="d509"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The idealist Bernardo Kastrup has indeed engaged with some philosophers (whom he later abuses) outside his idealist (for want of a better word) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">school</em>. He’d class most — even all — of these philosophers as “materialists”. However, as far as I can see, Kastrup has hardly debated the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specific</em> nature of materialism and/or physicalism with such philosophers. That said, his take on <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">idealism-vs-materialism</em> undergirds almost everything he writes and says.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="daba"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">So wee my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-idealist-cult-leader-who-endlessly-abuses-others-bee88bc404a" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/bernardo-kastrup-the-idealist-cult-leader-who-endlessly-abuses-others-bee88bc404a" target="_blank">‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’</a>. I can now include the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Maudlin" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tim Maudlin</a> on the list of people Kastrup has abused. See also Kastrup’s own ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">My unfortunate attempt at debating Tim Maudlin</a>’ from as recent as October 2023, in which he wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Maudlin%27s+unbecoming%2C+unacademic+and+rude+behaviour+made+it+clear+that+such+was+not+the+case.+He+came+across+to+me+as+a+nasty+and+crass+street+brawler%2C+not+a+thinker.+%5B%5D+Nor+do+I+find+his+ungrounded%2C+tendentious%2C+hand-waving+and+wishful+technical+statements+worthy+of+in-depth+discussion+in+debate+format.+I+am+sure+he+can+continue+to+believe+in+his+unfalsifiable%2C+pseudo-scientific+fantasies+without+my%C2%A0help.%22&sca_esv=591785850&source=hp&ei=OPB_Za2rGOKhqtsP0ZWloAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX_-SEpgnLbDnieXxg9EjsyaijD8HdaX&ved=0ahUKEwitp-L5tpiDAxXikGoFHdFKCUQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Maudlin%27s+unbecoming%2C+unacademic+and+rude+behaviour+made+it+clear+that+such+was+not+the+case.+He+came+across+to+me+as+a+nasty+and+crass+street+brawler%2C+not+a+thinker.+%5B%5D+Nor+do+I+find+his+ungrounded%2C+tendentious%2C+hand-waving+and+wishful+technical+statements+worthy+of+in-depth+discussion+in+debate+format.+I+am+sure+he+can+continue+to+believe+in+his+unfalsifiable%2C+pseudo-scientific+fantasies+without+my%C2%A0help.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Maudlin%27s+unbecoming%2C+unacademic+and+rude+behaviour+made+it+clear+that+such+was+not+the+case.+He+came+across+to+me+as+a+nasty+and+crass+street+brawler%2C+not+a+thinker.+%5B%5D+Nor+do+I+find+his+ungrounded%2C+tendentious%2C+hand-waving+and+wishful+technical+statements+worthy+of+in-depth+discussion+in+debate+format.+I+am+sure+he+can+continue+to+believe+in+his+unfalsifiable%2C+pseudo-scientific+fantasies+without+my%C2%A0help.%22&sca_esv=591785850&source=hp&ei=OPB_Za2rGOKhqtsP0ZWloAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZX_-SEpgnLbDnieXxg9EjsyaijD8HdaX&ved=0ahUKEwitp-L5tpiDAxXikGoFHdFKCUQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Maudlin%27s+unbecoming%2C+unacademic+and+rude+behaviour+made+it+clear+that+such+was+not+the+case.+He+came+across+to+me+as+a+nasty+and+crass+street+brawler%2C+not+a+thinker.+%5B%5D+Nor+do+I+find+his+ungrounded%2C+tendentious%2C+hand-waving+and+wishful+technical+statements+worthy+of+in-depth+discussion+in+debate+format.+I+am+sure+he+can+continue+to+believe+in+his+unfalsifiable%2C+pseudo-scientific+fantasies+without+my%C2%A0help.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="edfa"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Maudlin’s unbecoming, unacademic and rude behaviour made it clear that such was not the case. He came across to me as a nasty and crass street brawler, not a thinker. </i>[]<i> Nor do I find his ungrounded, tendentious, hand-waving and wishful technical statements worthy of in-depth discussion in debate format. I am sure he can continue to believe in his unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific fantasies without my help.”</i></span></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-3770415850250362222023-12-27T22:36:00.000-08:002023-12-27T22:36:34.099-08:00Consciousness & Qualia: Who Cares About “How They Seem To Us”?<p> <img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*d5wSQcwpeT8Zj4iu0b8EHg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*d5wSQcwpeT8Zj4iu0b8EHg.png" /></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="31f5"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Against Phenomenology?</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Owen Flanagan on Phenomenology</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Daniel Dennett’s Heterophenomenology</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Dennett on Qualia (Via Flanagan)</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Flanagan on Dennett’s Position</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Conclusion: Physicalism, Anti-Physicalism or Something Else?</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7005"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The English philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a> has used the words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&source=hp&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&source=hp&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“consciousness is a datum in its own right”</a> a few times in his writings and interviews. Other philosophers have expressed exactly the same idea (if in different words).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2730"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Latin word <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum </em>can be translated as<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>“(thing) given” and “to give”. Thus, a datum has been deemed to be something that is (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">theory-free</em> (i.e., something that’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">given</em> before it’s theorised about). Of course, this isn’t to say that all (or even most) scientists and philosophers take the word “datum” in that limited and etymologically-strict way. That said, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> scientists and philosophers certainly have taken this word to mean <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">that-which-is-given.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0a5b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this the case with Philip Goff?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c127"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now how does Goff’s own <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">that is consciousness</em> stand within the context of all the books and papers which he and others have read on the subject of consciousness? What’s more, can any distinction at all be made between such a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum </em>and all the things each philosopher and layperson has read about it?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="62be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, if readers have read lots of (or just some) books on consciousness (or, alternatively, come across the word “qualia” many times), then surely that will impact on how they describe and/or theorise about any ostensibly (to use Goff’s words again) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“private seemings”</a> they may have.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cc2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now take specifically those who stress <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">how things seem </em>to them.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3ac0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Don’t they (or a least some of them) additionally take these <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> to be the basis for what they also take to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qualia</em></a>? Relevantly, most of these people<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>would deem it ridiculous to say that technical terms, definitions, theories, books on consciousness, etc. have anything to do with qualia or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">how things seem to them</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="952d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, these things most certainly do have a lot to do with the matter of consciousness — and even a lot to do with subjects’ phenomenological descriptions of their <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=subjective+state&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=uAN4Zb_6F9TPhbIP0KmzQA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgRyFDTqAkcgIN3_NfKcQXWtpqzFQ0k&ved=0ahUKEwi_tpG2qImDAxXUZ0EAHdDUDAgQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=subjective+state&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIHN0YXRlMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEj8F1AAWOETcAB4AJABAJgB6AGgAf8LqgEGMTIuMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYyQPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAhAQABiABBixAxiDARhGGPkB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=subjective+state&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=uAN4Zb_6F9TPhbIP0KmzQA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgRyFDTqAkcgIN3_NfKcQXWtpqzFQ0k&ved=0ahUKEwi_tpG2qImDAxXUZ0EAHdDUDAgQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=subjective+state&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIHN0YXRlMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEj8F1AAWOETcAB4AJABAJgB6AGgAf8LqgEGMTIuMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYyQPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAhAQABiABBixAxiDARhGGPkB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">subjective states</a> and qualia.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1119"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s not really <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">private seemings</em> which are the problem: it’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what people say about them</em>. More relevantly, it’s how people philosophise and theorise about them. Indeed, it’s also about how <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reading</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">books about consciousness </em>(or coming across the word “qualia” all the time) may influence <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what they say</em> about consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f799"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More strongly, perhaps when a layperson first uses the word “qualia”, then that’s precisely the moment he/she stops being a layperson. (Of course, such a person doesn’t also need to be an expert, or to have read lots of academic papers on qualia.) Indeed, the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patricia Churchland</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>once said that the word <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“‘qualia’ is a term of art, which was introduced by philosophers”</a>.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="7c7f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="336" data-image-id="1*Uy0LQzC60c-KNt3OOJQPTA.png" data-width="700" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Uy0LQzC60c-KNt3OOJQPTA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f2e0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s relevant to bring up the historical phenomenologists here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9d64"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Martin-Heidegger-Between-Good-Evil/dp/0674387104" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Martin-Heidegger-Between-Good-Evil/dp/0674387104" rel="noopener" target="_blank">According to</a> the German philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCdiger_Safranski" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCdiger_Safranski" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Rüdiger Safranski">Rüdiger Safranski</a>, the “great ambition” of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Edmund Husserl</a> and “his followers” was to</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f71b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“disregard anything that had until then been thought or said about consciousness or the world </i>[while]<i> on the lookout for a new way of letting the things </i>[they investigated]<i> approach them, without covering them up with what they already knew”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b399"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already argued, most laypersons don’t believe they’re <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">covering anything up</em> when they discuss their subjective states — or at least when they discuss their qualia. (They believe that qualia are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">theory-free</em>.) Husserlian phenomenologists, on the other hand, realised that consciousness came with baggage, and that was precisely why they wanted to get beyond that baggage.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5cbe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So an important (or at least relevant) question here is the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="0443"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Could we see our own subjective states, or even our own qualia, in any other way?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb1b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Canadian philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Churchland" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Churchland" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Paul Churchland</a> (to take just one example) believes that we could.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="7405"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="493" data-image-id="1*2UNeiU0FEbWRM5Z4TTQ5HQ.png" data-width="626" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*2UNeiU0FEbWRM5Z4TTQ5HQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="8432"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Churchland goes into detail <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Given+a+deep+and+practiced+familiarity+with+the+developing+idioms+of+cognitive+neurobiology,+we+might+learn+to+discriminate+by+introspection+the+coding+vectors+in+our+internal+axonal+pathways,+the+activation+patterns+across+salient+neural+populations,+and+myriad+other+things+besides.%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Given+a+deep+and+practiced+familiarity+with+the+developing+idioms+of+cognitive+neurobiology,+we+might+learn+to+discriminate+by+introspection+the+coding+vectors+in+our+internal+axonal+pathways,+the+activation+patterns+across+salient+neural+populations,+and+myriad+other+things+besides.%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">in the following</a> passage:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9ec4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Given a deep and practiced familiarity with the developing idioms of cognitive neurobiology, we might learn to discriminate by introspection the coding vectors in our internal axonal pathways, the activation patterns across salient neural populations, and myriad other things besides.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2f85"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, at present it would be virtually impossible (even in the case of all neuroscientists working collectively together) to describe our (to use Churchland’s own words) “first-person” thoughts, feelings and beliefs in terms of “coding vectors in our internal axonal pathways”, “activation patters across salient neural populations”, etc. Indeed, it may be hard to even <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">imagine</em> such a state of affairs at present.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="449c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, Churchland wasn’t talking about the case as it is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">today</em>. He explicitly<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22it+is+entirely+possible+for+a+person+or+culture+to+learn+and+use+some+other+framework+in+that+role%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22it+is+entirely+possible+for+a+person+or+culture+to+learn+and+use+some+other+framework+in+that+role%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> stated that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="df7c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“it is entirely possible for a person or culture to learn and use some other framework in that role”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4f73"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Clearly, this is a statement about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the future</em>. In other words, this isn’t about an elite group of neuroscientists imposing a new language on the populace <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">today — </em>or even slowly over the years.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4254"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On the other hand, if the “language” of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">folk psychology</em></a> has been with us since human language itself began (or perhaps even before), then perhaps Churchland’s wishes for the future may be a little utopian. (Or, depending on one’s views, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">dystopian</em>.) After all, there’s surely a difference between people or cultures picking up new words or terms (which happens all the time), and people picking up a new language to talk about their subjective states. However, surely critics can’t argue that this is something that won’t — or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">can’t</em> — happen in the future.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5ae7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Incidentally, Churchland isn’t an <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">eliminativist</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>about qualia. [See his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Knowing+qualia%3A+A+reply+to+Jackson&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=g_13Zb-2Lq-2hbIPr8-c6AU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgLk3kk7xbduBXLdwyn0EFdDyMD23bl&ved=0ahUKEwj_g8_AoomDAxUvW0EAHa8nB10Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Knowing+qualia%3A+A+reply+to+Jackson&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiJLbm93aW5nIHF1YWxpYTogQSByZXBseSB0byBKYWNrc29uMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSJMKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAUmgAUmqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Knowing+qualia%3A+A+reply+to+Jackson&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=g_13Zb-2Lq-2hbIPr8-c6AU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgLk3kk7xbduBXLdwyn0EFdDyMD23bl&ved=0ahUKEwj_g8_AoomDAxUvW0EAHa8nB10Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Knowing+qualia%3A+A+reply+to+Jackson&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiJLbm93aW5nIHF1YWxpYTogQSByZXBseSB0byBKYWNrc29uMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSJMKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAUmgAUmqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Knowing Qualia : A Reply to Jackson’</a>.] Although Churchland wants to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eliminate</em> (which isn’t a very helpful word) propositional attitudes<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/docs/Eliminative%20materialism.pdf" href="https://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/docs/Eliminative%20materialism.pdf" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">here</a>), he doesn’t actually want to eliminate qualia. Instead (as already stated), Churchland simply wants to re-envision what qualia (as well as other mental states) are, and how we should theorise (or philosophise) about them.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="a5e3" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Against Phenomenology?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="461a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="374" data-image-id="1*eyYWvAVgzQpYwOh_EFNfPA.png" data-width="539" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*eyYWvAVgzQpYwOh_EFNfPA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6c56"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The position advanced in this essay is at least partially in agreement with one that the American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Owen Flanagan</a> advanced in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+might+nonetheless+think+that+phenomenology+does+more+harm+than+good+when+it+comes+to+developing+a+proper+theory+of+consciousness%2C+since+it+fosters+certain+illusions+about+the+nature+of+consciousness.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=4P53ZceuDMPOhbIPy_escA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgM8KKD9I_OZccadoWHjXi0PZHjrlRo&ved=0ahUKEwjHnuLmo4mDAxVDZ0EAHcs7Cw4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22One+might+nonetheless+think+that+phenomenology+does+more+harm+than+good+when+it+comes+to+developing+a+proper+theory+of+consciousness%2C+since+it+fosters+certain+illusions+about+the+nature+of+consciousness.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Is0BIk9uZSBtaWdodCBub25ldGhlbGVzcyB0aGluayB0aGF0IHBoZW5vbWVub2xvZ3kgZG9lcyBtb3JlIGhhcm0gdGhhbiBnb29kIHdoZW4gaXQgY29tZXMgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcGluZyBhIHByb3BlciB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcywgc2luY2UgaXQgZm9zdGVycyBjZXJ0YWluIGlsbHVzaW9ucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmF0dXJlIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+might+nonetheless+think+that+phenomenology+does+more+harm+than+good+when+it+comes+to+developing+a+proper+theory+of+consciousness%2C+since+it+fosters+certain+illusions+about+the+nature+of+consciousness.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=4P53ZceuDMPOhbIPy_escA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgM8KKD9I_OZccadoWHjXi0PZHjrlRo&ved=0ahUKEwjHnuLmo4mDAxVDZ0EAHcs7Cw4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22One+might+nonetheless+think+that+phenomenology+does+more+harm+than+good+when+it+comes+to+developing+a+proper+theory+of+consciousness%2C+since+it+fosters+certain+illusions+about+the+nature+of+consciousness.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Is0BIk9uZSBtaWdodCBub25ldGhlbGVzcyB0aGluayB0aGF0IHBoZW5vbWVub2xvZ3kgZG9lcyBtb3JlIGhhcm0gdGhhbiBnb29kIHdoZW4gaXQgY29tZXMgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcGluZyBhIHByb3BlciB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcywgc2luY2UgaXQgZm9zdGVycyBjZXJ0YWluIGlsbHVzaW9ucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmF0dXJlIG9mIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3MuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a> passage:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4ab7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“One might nonetheless think </i>[i.e., after reading the arguments in favour of phenomenology] <i>that phenomenology does more harm than good when it comes to developing a proper theory of consciousness, since it fosters certain illusions about the nature of consciousness.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="6bb4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, Flanagan also told us that</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bde4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[s]<i>ome philosophers think that phenomenology is fundamentally irrelevant”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2e1b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan then told us<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>why that’s the case:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="39b3"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Firstly, there is no necessary connection between how things seem and how they are. Second, we are often mistaken in our self-reporting, including in our reporting about how things seem.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="83e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s a fact that things <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seem a certain way</em> (in terms of mental states) to certain human subjects at certain times — or even to all subjects at all times!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2786"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Not many philosophers or scientists would deny that.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0f66"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, isn’t there often a conflation (or confusion) here between <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seeming</em> and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what actually is the case</em>? (Sure, this is an epistemological minefield, which has been frequently discussed.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fd47"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, even a hardcore phenomenologist (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualiaphile&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=z_93ZaTxOqu3hbIPuMm0gAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgN4CyVTXbC4m8t4tmrt7ZRS8-nHDdG&ved=0ahUKEwjklIzZpImDAxWrW0EAHbgkDSAQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=qualiaphile&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgtxdWFsaWFwaGlsZTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESM4HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAVSgAVSqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qualiaphile&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=z_93ZaTxOqu3hbIPuMm0gAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgN4CyVTXbC4m8t4tmrt7ZRS8-nHDdG&ved=0ahUKEwjklIzZpImDAxWrW0EAHbgkDSAQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=qualiaphile&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgtxdWFsaWFwaGlsZTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESM4HUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAVSgAVSqAQExuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“qualiaphile”</a>) can’t treat all subjective accounts as gospel because such accounts often contradict each other. However, things <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">still seem a certain way</em> even if those <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> are given contradictory descriptions or accounts. In other words, in all these cases, there was still <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">a way that things seeme</em>d.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f37"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But who’s denying that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="974f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, what work does this acknowledgement of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> do for the science and ontology of consciousness?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, there is indeed a “how things seem”. However, how should we theorise/philosophise about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">how things seem</em>? How should we scientifically scrutinise such <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em>? Clearly, we can’t believe that if things <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seem a particular way</em>, then they must <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">be</em> that particular way.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="18fe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is a lesson many students of philosophy learned in their first philosophy class.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c54"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c42d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To subject <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">S,</em> the cricket bat in the water <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seems </em>to be bent. Yet that doesn’t mean that the cricket bat <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> bent — it’s refracted. Similarly, subject <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">S</em> hallucinating a red goblin is “private to the person” who has that hallucination. However, we wouldn’t conclude that the red goblin actually exists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ebf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet aren’t many people doing something similar to that when it comes to their own <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em>? Or does all this mean that we can’t make mistakes about private conscious (or mental) states? Yes we can. Indeed, there’s a large literature on this very subject which tells us that we often do. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/#EmpEviAccInt" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/#EmpEviAccInt" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6c9b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So why should the case be in different when it comes to phenomenology or the reports of our own subjective states?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4949"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It is because they’re “purely internal”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="166e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does that really make a difference?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d7a8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Well, there may well be a difference between looking at a stick in the water and reporting on one’s own mental state. However, do many people assume that no mistakes can be made about the latter, but they can be made about the former?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2b34"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Isn’t this an implicit adoption of the idea of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibilism#History" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibilism#History" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cartesian infallibility</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>about subjects’ mental states?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="03f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To return to the opening theme:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="318f"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">How do Philip Goff’s words “consciousness is a datum in its own right” fit into all this?</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="bcdb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, how does <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the datum of consciousness</em> fit into the phenomenological descriptions (or simply the “verbal reports”) of such a thing?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c7c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the arguments of Owen Flanagan again.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8a64" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Owen Flanagan on Phenomenology</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b0b1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="356" data-image-id="1*v_n-ZDrutzzaamQRPWAdXg.png" data-width="836" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*v_n-ZDrutzzaamQRPWAdXg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7593"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Strictly speaking, Owen Flanagan’s use of the word “phenomenology” doesn’t square too well with many other accounts of phenomenology (i.e., as mainly found in — to generalise - <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">continental philosophy</em>).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d7c4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan’s usage, instead, is more in tune with the etymology of the word, as in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+term+phenomenology+derives+from+the+Greek+%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD%2C+phain%C3%B3menon+%28%27that+which+appears%27%29+and+%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82%2C+l%C3%B3gos+%28%27study%27%29.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=PwR4ZZLsFbuHhbIP84ew8As&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgST2VfjHAi0XnqcFlC1n9smzWMcBYe&ved=0ahUKEwjSh7_2qImDAxW7Q0EAHfMDDL4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22The+term+phenomenology+derives+from+the+Greek+%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD%2C+phain%C3%B3menon+%28%27that+which+appears%27%29+and+%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82%2C+l%C3%B3gos+%28%27study%27%29.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IosBIlRoZSB0ZXJtIHBoZW5vbWVub2xvZ3kgZGVyaXZlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBHcmVlayDPhs6xzrnOvc-MzrzOtc69zr_OvSwgcGhhaW7Ds21lbm9uICgndGhhdCB3aGljaCBhcHBlYXJzJykgYW5kIM67z4zOs86_z4IsIGzDs2dvcyAoJ3N0dWR5JykuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+term+phenomenology+derives+from+the+Greek+%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD%2C+phain%C3%B3menon+%28%27that+which+appears%27%29+and+%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82%2C+l%C3%B3gos+%28%27study%27%29.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=PwR4ZZLsFbuHhbIP84ew8As&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgST2VfjHAi0XnqcFlC1n9smzWMcBYe&ved=0ahUKEwjSh7_2qImDAxW7Q0EAHfMDDL4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22The+term+phenomenology+derives+from+the+Greek+%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD%2C+phain%C3%B3menon+%28%27that+which+appears%27%29+and+%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82%2C+l%C3%B3gos+%28%27study%27%29.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IosBIlRoZSB0ZXJtIHBoZW5vbWVub2xvZ3kgZGVyaXZlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBHcmVlayDPhs6xzrnOvc-MzrzOtc69zr_OvSwgcGhhaW7Ds21lbm9uICgndGhhdCB3aGljaCBhcHBlYXJzJykgYW5kIM67z4zOs86_z4IsIGzDs2dvcyAoJ3N0dWR5JykuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this account</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d648"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The term phenomenology derives from the Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon (‘that which appears’) and λόγος, lógos (‘study’).”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4f9f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The relevant words in the above are “that which appears”. Indeed, the phenomenologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Edmund Husserl</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>once used the (Cartesian) words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.routledge.com/Introduction-to-Phenomenology/Moran/p/book/9780415183734" href="https://www.routledge.com/Introduction-to-Phenomenology/Moran/p/book/9780415183734" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“given in direct ‘self-evidence’”</a> when he referred to what he was doing</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bff2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan’s usage, on the other hand, doesn’t strictly abide by <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Phenomenology+is+the+philosophical+study+of+objectivity+and+reality+%28more+generally%29+as+subjectively+lived+and+experienced.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=CgF4Ze_LC-DBhbIP2ZyvsA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgPGihlatN2-IxLjU5viHv7Y_Wmei32&ved=0ahUKEwjv-PbupYmDAxXgYEEAHVnOC_YQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Phenomenology+is+the+philosophical+study+of+objectivity+and+reality+%28more+generally%29+as+subjectively+lived+and+experienced.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6In0iUGhlbm9tZW5vbG9neSBpcyB0aGUgcGhpbG9zb3BoaWNhbCBzdHVkeSBvZiBvYmplY3Rpdml0eSBhbmQgcmVhbGl0eSAobW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsbHkpIGFzIHN1YmplY3RpdmVseSBsaXZlZCBhbmQgZXhwZXJpZW5jZWQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Phenomenology+is+the+philosophical+study+of+objectivity+and+reality+%28more+generally%29+as+subjectively+lived+and+experienced.%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=CgF4Ze_LC-DBhbIP2ZyvsA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgPGihlatN2-IxLjU5viHv7Y_Wmei32&ved=0ahUKEwjv-PbupYmDAxXgYEEAHVnOC_YQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Phenomenology+is+the+philosophical+study+of+objectivity+and+reality+%28more+generally%29+as+subjectively+lived+and+experienced.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6In0iUGhlbm9tZW5vbG9neSBpcyB0aGUgcGhpbG9zb3BoaWNhbCBzdHVkeSBvZiBvYmplY3Rpdml0eSBhbmQgcmVhbGl0eSAobW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsbHkpIGFzIHN1YmplY3RpdmVseSBsaXZlZCBhbmQgZXhwZXJpZW5jZWQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following definition</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="abfa"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Phenomenology is the philosophical study of objectivity and reality (more generally) as subjectively lived and experienced.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3868"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In simple terms. Flanagan’s use of the word “phenomenology” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seems</em> to factor out (or simply ignore) “objectivity and reality”. More correctly, Flanagan believes that the qualiaphiles and anti-physicalists he’s arguing against do so.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f3b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So although Flanagan (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">accepts</em> phenomenology, he’s also a naturalist whose writings are full of scientific detail and case studies. This means that he’s certainly not a phenomenologist in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interdisciplinary-Perspectives-Consciousness-Sangeetha-Menon/dp/8132215869" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interdisciplinary-Perspectives-Consciousness-Sangeetha-Menon/dp/8132215869" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following sense</a> either:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0316"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Phenomenology proceeds systematically, but it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fb14"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As already stated, Flanagan’s position is at odds with what many other philosophers (though not all) have taken phenomenology to be. That said, it’s not being said here that Flannagan actually claims to be a phenomenologist (at least not in any strict sense). Instead, his position is that phenomenology is something that naturalists (such as himself) should accept, take note of, and tackle.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3e76"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In basic terms, Flanagan believes that phenomenology (to ironically rewrite Goff’s opening slogan) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is a datum in its own right</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Flanagan actually bounces off both Daniel Dennett and Dennett’s opponents, as will now be shown.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1a93" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Daniel Dennett’s Heterophenomenology</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2847"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="498" data-image-id="1*Yq-iUGkWXP9hdQxH_xObMA.png" data-width="820" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Yq-iUGkWXP9hdQxH_xObMA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b493"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Daniel Dennett</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>has created his own neologism: “heterophenomenology”. Heterophenomenology <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/1846144752" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/1846144752" rel="noopener" target="_blank">is the</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3df4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“study of first-person phenomena from the third-person point of view of objective science”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8285"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Since <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28philosophy%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">phenomenology</a> was originally seen as a (to use Dennett’s own words) “catalogue of phenomena”, then there’s no necessary reason why it should only be a study of subjects’ accounts of their own first-person mental states.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1f0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dennett goes into more detail when <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22exploits+our+capacity+to+perform+and+interpret+speech+acts%2C+yielding+a+catalogue+of+what+the+subject+believes+to+be+true+about+his+or+her+conscious+experience%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=0AF4Zbb5LaeZhbIP77SuiAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgP4PIgf1WvdT9IH_gyutVsN6KtQJ0j&ved=0ahUKEwi2oc7NpomDAxWnTEEAHW-aC8EQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22exploits+our+capacity+to+perform+and+interpret+speech+acts%2C+yielding+a+catalogue+of+what+the+subject+believes+to+be+true+about+his+or+her+conscious+experience%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqABImV4cGxvaXRzIG91ciBjYXBhY2l0eSB0byBwZXJmb3JtIGFuZCBpbnRlcnByZXQgc3BlZWNoIGFjdHMsIHlpZWxkaW5nIGEgY2F0YWxvZ3VlIG9mIHdoYXQgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdG8gYmUgdHJ1ZSBhYm91dCBoaXMgb3IgaGVyIGNvbnNjaW91cyBleHBlcmllbmNlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22exploits+our+capacity+to+perform+and+interpret+speech+acts%2C+yielding+a+catalogue+of+what+the+subject+believes+to+be+true+about+his+or+her+conscious+experience%22&sca_esv=590053957&source=hp&ei=0AF4Zbb5LaeZhbIP77SuiAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXgP4PIgf1WvdT9IH_gyutVsN6KtQJ0j&ved=0ahUKEwi2oc7NpomDAxWnTEEAHW-aC8EQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22exploits+our+capacity+to+perform+and+interpret+speech+acts%2C+yielding+a+catalogue+of+what+the+subject+believes+to+be+true+about+his+or+her+conscious+experience%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqABImV4cGxvaXRzIG91ciBjYXBhY2l0eSB0byBwZXJmb3JtIGFuZCBpbnRlcnByZXQgc3BlZWNoIGFjdHMsIHlpZWxkaW5nIGEgY2F0YWxvZ3VlIG9mIHdoYXQgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdG8gYmUgdHJ1ZSBhYm91dCBoaXMgb3IgaGVyIGNvbnNjaW91cyBleHBlcmllbmNlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">he adds</a> that heterophenomenology</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="da3a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“exploits our capacity to perform and interpret speech acts, yielding a catalogue of what the subject believes to be true about his or her conscious experience”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8ca8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, this isn’t a “catalogue” of conscious experiences, pains, mental states, qualia, etc. (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in themselves</em>. It’s a catalogue of the “speech acts”, etc. <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">about</em> these things. In other words, physiological responses, physical behaviour, “verbal reports”, etc. are the (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meat</em> of heterophenomenology — not consciousness, experiences or mental phenomena <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in themselves</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, Dennett would argue that there can’t even be anything <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in itself</em> in these cases.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d6b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Since phenomenology was originally seen to be the study of phenomena (again, according to Dennett) “before there is a good theory of them”, then how does this work in the case of third-person (scientific) accounts of first-person mental phenomena? After all, Husserl and other phenomenologists saw their own phenomenology as being <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22presuppositionless%22+phenomenology&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=2XZ4ZbDNLIaHhbIP6Jm_0A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiE6ecrooKegruq2X9RI01BbAEe85gu&ved=0ahUKEwjwnY-cloqDAxWGQ0EAHejMD9oQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22presuppositionless%22+phenomenology&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIicHJlc3VwcG9zaXRpb25sZXNzIiBwaGVub21lbm9sb2d5MgUQIRigAUirO1AAWPQzcAB4AJABAJgBtwGgAe0MqgEENS4xMLgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAcICBRAAGIAEwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGB4YD8ICBhAAGB4YCsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22presuppositionless%22+phenomenology&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=2XZ4ZbDNLIaHhbIP6Jm_0A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiE6ecrooKegruq2X9RI01BbAEe85gu&ved=0ahUKEwjwnY-cloqDAxWGQ0EAHejMD9oQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22presuppositionless%22+phenomenology&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiIicHJlc3VwcG9zaXRpb25sZXNzIiBwaGVub21lbm9sb2d5MgUQIRigAUirO1AAWPQzcAB4AJABAJgBtwGgAe0MqgEENS4xMLgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAcICBRAAGIAEwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGB4YD8ICBhAAGB4YCsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“presuppositionless”</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-4454-1_8" href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-4454-1_8" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“non-theoretical”</a>. Not only that: (for Husserl at least) it was an attempt to provide a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Husserlian+phenomenology+as+a+grounding+for+science&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=Xnd4ZaOZBcydhbIP-OSo8AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiFboWEH-aieDT5VAxORU0_t2YC9qF8&ved=0ahUKEwijwJ3bloqDAxXMTkEAHXgyCj4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Husserlian+phenomenology+as+a+grounding+for+science&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Husserlian+phenomenology+as+a+grounding+for+science&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=Xnd4ZaOZBcydhbIP-OSo8AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiFboWEH-aieDT5VAxORU0_t2YC9qF8&ved=0ahUKEwijwJ3bloqDAxXMTkEAHXgyCj4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Husserlian+phenomenology+as+a+grounding+for+science&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">basis (or grounding) for science</a>. [Husserl’s purpose was substantially Cartesian in nature. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Husserl+was+a+Cartesian&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=tXd4Zb6nNtTBhbIP1v6O0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiFxTsu44ab6t0xX-0EcOm0RGwde5de&ved=0ahUKEwj-1YyFl4qDAxXUYEEAHVa_AzoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Husserl+was+a+Cartesian&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdIdXNzZXJsIHdhcyBhIENhcnRlc2lhbjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSKlGUABYhUFwBHgAkAEAmAGJAaAB2hSqAQQxOS44uAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAhQQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAuGIAEwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEYrwHCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCxAuGK8BGMcBGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgUQIRigAcICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Husserl+was+a+Cartesian&sca_esv=590159290&source=hp&ei=tXd4Zb6nNtTBhbIP1v6O0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXiFxTsu44ab6t0xX-0EcOm0RGwde5de&ved=0ahUKEwj-1YyFl4qDAxXUYEEAHVa_AzoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Husserl+was+a+Cartesian&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdIdXNzZXJsIHdhcyBhIENhcnRlc2lhbjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSKlGUABYhUFwBHgAkAEAmAGJAaAB2hSqAQQxOS44uAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAhQQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAuGIAEwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEYrwHCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCxAuGK8BGMcBGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAgUQIRigAcICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4dfc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now can it also be said that Dennett’s own brand of phenomenology (if that’s what it actually is) is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">presuppositionless</em>, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">non-theoretical,</em> and a basis for (i.e., rather than a part of) science?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="63eb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course it can’t!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4420"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, yes, it’s indeed the case that studying any kind of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomena</em> can be deemed to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenology</em>. (This is true by definition.) However, studying mental phenomena as a project in science (i.e., with its own <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">presuppositions</em> and theories which will be applied to such phenomena) surely can’t be classed as <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">phenomenology</em> — at least not in the way that historical phenomenologists saw things.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0f86" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Dennett on Qualia (Via Flanagan)</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9daa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="489" data-image-id="1*IvMV92trfXlKnWSmZDNsNA.png" data-width="867" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*IvMV92trfXlKnWSmZDNsNA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="811d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even Daniel Dennett<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>himself<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>accepts that qualia are “real”… at least according to Owen Flanagan. In detail, Flanagan <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.scribd.com/document/213389738/Flannagan-on-Consciousness" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/213389738/Flannagan-on-Consciousness" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="25ae"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Qualia are for real. Dennett himself says what they are before he starts quining. Sanely, he writes, ‘‘Qualia’ is an unfamiliar terms for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways thing seem to us’ </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="13c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Okay — there are<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> ways things seem to us</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7b07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But where do we go from there?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f05"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Dennett may well (initially) accept qualia. However, he certainly doesn’t accept what he takes to the main philosophical account of them to be. [See<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Daniel_Dennett" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Daniel_Dennett" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.] In other words, such qualia (at least in Dennett’s view) are mere<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm" href="https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“quicksilver”</a> (i.e., “things” with very little scientific or even philosophical point).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9821"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail. Flanagan (again) puts Dennett’s position on qualia in the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following way</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="20cb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“To think this, Dennett must think that the identification of qualia with the ‘way things seem to us’ must be interpreted as meaning that a quale is a state such that, necessarily, being in it seems a certain way and, necessarily, there is nothing else to it.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0cb2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On this account of Dennett (if in crude terms), if quale <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> (or set of qualia <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em>) “seems a certain way”, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">then it</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seems a certain way</em>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5421"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">There is nothing else to it</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2c66"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps Dennett’s account of qualia (if via Flanagan) is made of straw.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="600f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, if Dennett’s account <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">weren’t</em> broadly accurate, then qualia wouldn’t do all the work their supposed to do for anti-physicalists and many others. In other words, such people actually require Dennett’s account of qualia to be accepted. That’s because without it their own case against physicalism, etc. simply won’t work. [Note: some physicalists accept the existence of qualia.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bbcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s not just the case that Dennett wants to portray qualia in this (seemingly?) extreme way: it seems that qualia enthusiasts do so too. That’s because (again) if qualia aren’t taken to be as Dennett believes they’re taken to be (i.e., by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qualiaphiles</em>), then what would be the (philosophical) point of them?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More broadly, much qualia-talk is (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">designed</em> to end up with Flanagan’s final statement — “there is nothing else to it”. That <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">nothing else</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">to it</em> is used to guarantee qualia complete freedom and autonomy from any (complete?) physical account or description of them.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a79b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As it is, Flanagan is unhappy with Dennett’s account.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2bda" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Flanagan on Dennett’s Position</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="8392"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="03c4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> I claim that the concept simply doesn’t need to be understood that way. The alternative interpretation is that a quale is a state such that being in it seems a certain way. This interpretation is better because it allows us the concept of the way things seem without making seemings atomic, intrinsic, exhaustive, ineffable, and so on.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9610"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is a hard passage to grasp. (I needed to read it more than once.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9adb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On first reading, Flanagan seemed to be simply repeating Dennett’s own account of qualia — if with slightly different wording.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8c4d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, in one passage Flanagan says that Dennett <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">identifies </em>qualia “with the ‘way things seem to us’”. On Flanagan’s own account, on the other hand, “a quale is a state such that being in it seems a certain way”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fa75"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So is there a substantive difference between <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the way x seems to us</em>, and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">quale</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x is a state such that being in it seems a certain way</em>? (Other than Flanagan’s use of the words “a quale is a state”.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c9a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That question just asked, I believe that Flanagan’s point is the following.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2fbe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For both qualiaphiles and for Dennett, quale <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> s<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eeming a certain way</em> is (literally) the end of the story. To Flanagan, on the other hand, b<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">eing in state x</em>, and quale <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seeming a certain way to us</em>, isn’t the end of the story.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cba2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On this reading, then, we have an explanation as to why Flanagan concluded with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560771/consciousness-reconsidered/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1075"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This interpretation is better because it allows us the concept of the way things seem without making seemings atomic, intrinsic, exhaustive, ineffable, and so on.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d5d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, Flanagan’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">interpretation</em> is better (to Flanagan at least) because even though there are indeed (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">brute</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> — that’s not the end of the story…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="06cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, surely it isn’t (or wasn’t) the end of the story for Dennett either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fa7f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps Flanagan’s point is that we can accept that there is a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">way things seem</em>, yet not also take these <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> to be (Flanagan quotes Dennett’s terms) “atomic, intrinsic, exhaustive, ineffable, and so on”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="021d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan’s conclusion (if I have it right) can be summed up in this way:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="e115"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(i) Because Dennett believes that qualia </span>must<span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> be construed as being “atomic”, “intrinsic”, “exhaustive” and “ineffable”,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="f126"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(ii) then, to qualiaphiles, that must be </span><i>the end of the story</i><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">.</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b1da"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that Dennett is taking the qualiaphiles and anti-physicalists at their word.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08fb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Flanagan, on the other hand, isn’t taken them at their word.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="95ae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Instead, Flanagan’s “alternative interpretation” is that “a quale is a state such that being in it seems a certain way”. (I still don’t really understand this phrasing.) Thus, that<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> isn’t</em> the end of the the story<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>for Flanagan. Indeed, Flanagan supplies lots of very persuasive and interesting philosophical and scientific detail as to why <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> aren’t — or even can’t be — the end of the story.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the above ties up directly to the broad philosophical position of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">physicalism</a> and its relation to consciousness (i.e., not just on whether one takes a physicalist or anti-physicalist take on qualia).</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6d4b" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion: Physicalism, Anti-Physicalism or Something Else?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2390"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="555" data-image-id="1*bssrynuT0ZqWI5IqD7FUwQ.png" data-width="737" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*bssrynuT0ZqWI5IqD7FUwQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1f55"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps the seemingly(?) non-physical nature of mental <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> is largely — or even entirely — down to people’s subjective (or first-person) takes on them. In other words, to the (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236755268_The_Ownership_of_Thoughts" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236755268_The_Ownership_of_Thoughts" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">owners</em>”</a>, qualia and/or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> do indeed <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seem</em> to be non-physical. Yet do things <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seeming-to-be-non-physical</em> mean that they <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">are</em> non-physical?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8df2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, perhaps there’s a fundamental reason as to why the owner (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">haver</em>) of seeming <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">S</em> takes it to be non-physical.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="20e4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that because (to quote Peter Carruthers) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Introducing_Persons/eowrBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Even+if+descriptions+of+consciousness+experiences+are+logically+independent+of+all+descriptions+of+physical+states+%28as+the+cartesian+conception+implies%29+it+may+in+fact+be+the+case+that+those+descriptions+are+descriptions+of+the+very+same+things.+This+is+just+what+the+thesis+of+mind%2Fbrain+identity+affirms.&pg=PA131&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Introducing_Persons/eowrBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Even+if+descriptions+of+consciousness+experiences+are+logically+independent+of+all+descriptions+of+physical+states+%28as+the+cartesian+conception+implies%29+it+may+in+fact+be+the+case+that+those+descriptions+are+descriptions+of+the+very+same+things.+This+is+just+what+the+thesis+of+mind%2Fbrain+identity+affirms.&pg=PA131&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“[c]onscious states are private to the person who has them”</a>, then the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">notion of the non-physicality</em> of seemings will be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">private</em> to the person who has them too. Yet how can we draw out the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">actual</em> non-physicality of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> from such personal “reports” on them?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6da0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, perhaps that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seeming-to-be-non-physical-to-subjects </em>is largely a product of personal psychology, learning, books, culture, history, and sociology.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cc4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More broadly, what relevance or status do personal (or private) accounts of mental <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">seemings</em> have on the actual metaphysical and scientific status of such things?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cc4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-73128953254009028632023-12-23T06:25:00.000-08:002023-12-23T06:25:55.111-08:00Gerald R. Baron’s Religious “Crusade” Against Materialism<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">The Medium writer </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Gerald R. Baron</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> is on a (to use his own word) “crusade” against what he describes as “physicalism” (i.e., philosophical <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">materialism</em>). From Baron’s own words, it’s very clear that his religious views are a prime motive behind his anti-materialism. Yet when critics mention the prior religious beliefs and motivations of such religious (or “spiritual”) anti-materialists, Baron doesn’t deem that to be a good thing. Indeed, he suggests that critics should <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">stick to the arguments.</em></strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="6379"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a064"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*c88zZTyD7I4uk0QwgkZZfg.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*c88zZTyD7I4uk0QwgkZZfg.png" /></span></figure><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="4dab"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“My crusade then, if there is one, is to expose the false teaching that physicalism represents </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a53b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">— Gerald R. Baron </strong>[See source<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=588364199&source=hp&ei=dHRwZdj5DeyWhbIPmOiEyAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCChJBbLaPnv9A7NRimbL7mRzbxGC9b&ved=0ahUKEwjYg8rn8vqCAxVsS0EAHRg0AVkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItoBIk15IGNydXNhZGUgdGhlbiwgaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgb25lLCBpcyB0byBleHBvc2UgdGhlIGZhbHNlIHRlYWNoaW5nIHRoYXQgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20gcmVwcmVzZW50cyBhbmQgaW4gZG9pbmcgc28gaGVscCByZXNvbHZlIHRoZSBkaXNzb25hbmNlLiBSZXNvbHZpbmcgdGhpcyBtYXkgd2VsbCBtZWFuIG5vdCBhIHJldHVybiB0byB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBDaHJpc3RpYW4gYmVsaWVmc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=588364199&source=hp&ei=dHRwZdj5DeyWhbIPmOiEyAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCChJBbLaPnv9A7NRimbL7mRzbxGC9b&ved=0ahUKEwjYg8rn8vqCAxVsS0EAHRg0AVkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItoBIk15IGNydXNhZGUgdGhlbiwgaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgb25lLCBpcyB0byBleHBvc2UgdGhlIGZhbHNlIHRlYWNoaW5nIHRoYXQgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20gcmVwcmVzZW50cyBhbmQgaW4gZG9pbmcgc28gaGVscCByZXNvbHZlIHRoZSBkaXNzb25hbmNlLiBSZXNvbHZpbmcgdGhpcyBtYXkgd2VsbCBtZWFuIG5vdCBhIHJldHVybiB0byB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBDaHJpc3RpYW4gYmVsaWVmc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="3ef5"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><p class="graf graf--p" name="dd5d"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Gerald Baron’s Religious and Political Views</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Gerald Baron on Being Called a “Science-Denier”</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Are Baron’s Scientific Big Names Really Physicalists?</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="12f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald R. Baron has said that critical commentators shouldn’t talk about the motivations and prior religious convictions of those who criticise materialism (or physicalism), as well as the religious motivations of those people who go against what he deems to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+R.+Baron+on+%22mainstream+science%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=85FwZeGnBsS6hbIPoPmOiA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCgA0nNPlcJuMGYfKifL2rUMaH_BGut&ved=0ahUKEwih7Y74jvuCAxVEXUEAHaC8A_EQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Gerald+R.+Baron+on+%22mainstream+science%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidHZXJhbGQgUi4gQmFyb24gb24gIm1haW5zdHJlYW0gc2NpZW5jZSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiqVVAAWJBLcAB4AJABAJgB0gGgAaURqgEGOS4xMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEB-AECwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAggQABiABBixA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BwgIIEC4YgAQY1ALCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgILEC4Y1AIYsQMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICBxAuGIAEGArCAg4QLhiABBjHARivARiOBcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIGEAAYFhge&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+R.+Baron+on+%22mainstream+science%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=85FwZeGnBsS6hbIPoPmOiA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCgA0nNPlcJuMGYfKifL2rUMaH_BGut&ved=0ahUKEwih7Y74jvuCAxVEXUEAHaC8A_EQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Gerald+R.+Baron+on+%22mainstream+science%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IidHZXJhbGQgUi4gQmFyb24gb24gIm1haW5zdHJlYW0gc2NpZW5jZSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiqVVAAWJBLcAB4AJABAJgB0gGgAaURqgEGOS4xMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEB-AECwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAggQABiABBixA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BwgIIEC4YgAQY1ALCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgILEC4Y1AIYsQMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICBxAuGIAEGArCAg4QLhiABBjHARivARiOBcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIGEAAYFhge&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“mainstream science”</a>. In Baron’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22and+more+recently%2C+cosmopsychism.+Again%2C+he+doesn%27t+argue+against+these+ideas+directly%2C+but+attributes+them+to+his+prior+political+and+religious+ideas+or+commitments.%22&sca_esv=588364199&ei=x3RwZdrCLM-3hbIPhsyEwAY&ved=0ahUKEwiawrKP8_qCAxXPW0EAHQYmAWgQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22and+more+recently%2C+cosmopsychism.+Again%2C+he+doesn%27t+argue+against+these+ideas+directly%2C+but+attributes+them+to+his+prior+political+and+religious+ideas+or+commitments.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiqAEiYW5kIG1vcmUgcmVjZW50bHksIGNvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20uIEFnYWluLCBoZSBkb2Vzbid0IGFyZ3VlIGFnYWluc3QgdGhlc2UgaWRlYXMgZGlyZWN0bHksIGJ1dCBhdHRyaWJ1dGVzIHRoZW0gdG8gaGlzIHByaW9yIHBvbGl0aWNhbCBhbmQgcmVsaWdpb3VzIGlkZWFzIG9yIGNvbW1pdG1lbnRzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22and+more+recently%2C+cosmopsychism.+Again%2C+he+doesn%27t+argue+against+these+ideas+directly%2C+but+attributes+them+to+his+prior+political+and+religious+ideas+or+commitments.%22&sca_esv=588364199&ei=x3RwZdrCLM-3hbIPhsyEwAY&ved=0ahUKEwiawrKP8_qCAxXPW0EAHQYmAWgQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22and+more+recently%2C+cosmopsychism.+Again%2C+he+doesn%27t+argue+against+these+ideas+directly%2C+but+attributes+them+to+his+prior+political+and+religious+ideas+or+commitments.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiqAEiYW5kIG1vcmUgcmVjZW50bHksIGNvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20uIEFnYWluLCBoZSBkb2Vzbid0IGFyZ3VlIGFnYWluc3QgdGhlc2UgaWRlYXMgZGlyZWN0bHksIGJ1dCBhdHRyaWJ1dGVzIHRoZW0gdG8gaGlzIHByaW9yIHBvbGl0aWNhbCBhbmQgcmVsaWdpb3VzIGlkZWFzIG9yIGNvbW1pdG1lbnRzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9ecf"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Murphy is critical of Goff’s views on panpsychism, and more recently, cosmopsychism. Again, he doesn’t argue against these ideas directly, but attributes them to his prior political and religious ideas or commitments.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ab7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Later, Baron <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+I+miss+in+this+process+is+the+substantive+analysis+of+the%C2%A0ideas.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=zZFwZfS4COK4hbIPudiNmAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCf3e-nJmZsd-Y6k9ODZe7bv-tSwtuM&ved=0ahUKEwi004HmjvuCAxViXEEAHTlsA6MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22What+I+miss+in+this+process+is+the+substantive+analysis+of+the%C2%A0ideas.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgiV2hhdCBJIG1pc3MgaW4gdGhpcyBwcm9jZXNzIGlzIHRoZSBzdWJzdGFudGl2ZSBhbmFseXNpcyBvZiB0aGXCoGlkZWFzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+I+miss+in+this+process+is+the+substantive+analysis+of+the%C2%A0ideas.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=zZFwZfS4COK4hbIPudiNmAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCf3e-nJmZsd-Y6k9ODZe7bv-tSwtuM&ved=0ahUKEwi004HmjvuCAxViXEEAHTlsA6MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22What+I+miss+in+this+process+is+the+substantive+analysis+of+the%C2%A0ideas.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgiV2hhdCBJIG1pc3MgaW4gdGhpcyBwcm9jZXNzIGlzIHRoZSBzdWJzdGFudGl2ZSBhbmFseXNpcyBvZiB0aGXCoGlkZWFzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">adds</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2294"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“What I miss in this process is the substantive analysis of the ideas.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c30f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those two statements are outrageously and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">obviously</em> false.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e414"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now Baron may not like what I’ve written on these subjects, but does he also need to make claims which are obviously false? Is this kind of thing allowed in his “crusade”?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9c22"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, I can give Baron the benefit of the doubt here and say that in the single essay which he tackled, I may not “argue against these ideas directly”. But I have done so, in great detail, elsewhere. (Baron has stated that he’s read at least some of my other stuff.) More particularly, I’ve done so in many essays that never mention “prior political and religious ideas or commitments” — not a single time. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</strong> for a list of such essays.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="99a7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, I <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">did</em> actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">argue against the ideas directly</em> even in the essays Baron focused upon.</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> [See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2dbe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The same is true when when I’ve written on Paul Davies, and even when I’ve written on Bernardo Kastrup. Yet it’s hard not to bring up religion, etc. when discussing Davies’s and Kastrup’s ideas because they often do so themselves.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="69d3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, I <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">don’t </em>deny for one moment that I have indeed mentioned the motivations and prior religious views<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>of<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>Bernardo Kastrup and Philip Goff. So I do both: I tackle their technical arguments, and then I place that within the (what I deem to be) important context of their prior religious and political views.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5947"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If that’s still a problem, then I need to know why.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="737b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, chronologically, I came to discuss these writers’ prior political and religious views precisely because I noted the (obvious) weaknesses of their arguments (or lack thereof). More relevantly, the weaknesses of their arguments are best explained (to me at least) by their religious and political views and motivations. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3</strong>.] </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, it can be strongly and easily argued that the philosophical arguments such writers put forward are purely and simply designed to advance their prior religious and political positions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3cf6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this can be brought right up to date.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="213e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron has just published an article called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@gerald-baron/decoding-david-bohms-metaphysics-98ce0231257c" href="https://medium.com/@gerald-baron/decoding-david-bohms-metaphysics-98ce0231257c" target="_blank">‘Decoding David Bohm’s Metaphysics’</a>. (David Bohn is a favourite with New-Agers and “spiritual” people. See Graham Pemberton’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+and+mystical+views&sca_esv=067143e154801387&source=hp&ei=fQB0ZcWkI_eZwbkPisa3eA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXQOjdiv7FGlOBqgbzA-XyYS15tHvFci&ved=0ahUKEwiF1_Dj1IGDAxX3TDABHQrjDQ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+and+mystical+views&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+and+mystical+views&sca_esv=067143e154801387&source=hp&ei=fQB0ZcWkI_eZwbkPisa3eA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXQOjdiv7FGlOBqgbzA-XyYS15tHvFci&ved=0ahUKEwiF1_Dj1IGDAxX3TDABHQrjDQ8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+and+mystical+views&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Quantum Physics and Spirituality — part 7, David Bohm’</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+mystical+&sca_esv=067143e154801387&ei=jwB0ZcbaJt6JwbkP7cSUsAo&ved=0ahUKEwiG3r7s1IGDAxXeRDABHW0iBaYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+mystical+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIERhdmlkIEJvaG0ncyBzcGlyaXR1YWwgbXlzdGljYWwgMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSMsfUOoEWPoYcAB4ApABAJgB8wGgAY0FqgEDMi0zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEEAAYR8ICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+mystical+&sca_esv=067143e154801387&ei=jwB0ZcbaJt6JwbkP7cSUsAo&ved=0ahUKEwiG3r7s1IGDAxXeRDABHW0iBaYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=David+Bohm%27s+spiritual+mystical+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIERhdmlkIEJvaG0ncyBzcGlyaXR1YWwgbXlzdGljYWwgMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSMsfUOoEWPoYcAB4ApABAJgB8wGgAY0FqgEDMi0zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEEAAYR8ICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.) When you read this “first in a short series of posts”, you can clearly see exactly where it’s all heading — to religious/spiritual and (to use Baron’s own word) “transcendent” conclusions. Thus, David Bohm’s quoted words are simply a vehicle for these conclusions. Bohn’s physics isn’t t embraced (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">in itself</em>. It’s embraced simply as a means to an end. Hence, Baron quotes Bohn extensively, but he never adds much (or even any!) critical — or otherwise — commentary.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3260"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So religion and politics wag the dog.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0142"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, all this is up for debate.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e632"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, if a writer did only one of these things (e.g., concentrate <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">entirely</em> on the motivations and prior religious views of Kastrup, Goff, Baron, Davies, etc.), then that may well be a problem. However, I’ve never personally done such a thing — not even in the essays in which I do, admittedly, mention such people’s motivations and prior religious views.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="12a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So was the following really the case?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e449"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It was Baron <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em> who focussed on my mentions of “motivations” and “prior religious views”, and he simply ignored all my arguments (i.e., those arguments which didn’t mention such things). Indeed, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">from what I’ve read</em>, Baron never tackles the technical arguments of flesh-and-blood physicalists or materialists, or even paraphrases what they’ve written. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 4</strong>.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="6377"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="435" data-image-id="1*D7DLDSqxA66AYMx79fiaPw.png" data-width="965" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*D7DLDSqxA66AYMx79fiaPw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b11"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To slightly change tack.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a449"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s odd that Baron doesn’t like critics bringing up his own and other people’s motivations and prior religious views — and that’s because Baron does so <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">himself</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="77e1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, in an interview with a self-described <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22humanist%2C+a+seeker+and+a+globalist%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=V5FwZbK4Ndm5hbIPh_Gm2AI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCfZyZ9balq9dFVqOwoZf5tIHVrGukt&ved=0ahUKEwjyv4yujvuCAxXZXEEAHYe4CSsQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22humanist%2C+a+seeker+and+a+globalist%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiQiaHVtYW5pc3QsIGEgc2Vla2VyIGFuZCBhIGdsb2JhbGlzdCIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiJBRiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIpAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBqAGgAagBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22humanist%2C+a+seeker+and+a+globalist%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=V5FwZbK4Ndm5hbIPh_Gm2AI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCfZyZ9balq9dFVqOwoZf5tIHVrGukt&ved=0ahUKEwjyv4yujvuCAxXZXEEAHYe4CSsQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22humanist%2C+a+seeker+and+a+globalist%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiQiaHVtYW5pc3QsIGEgc2Vla2VyIGFuZCBhIGdsb2JhbGlzdCIyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiJBRiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIpAlQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBqAGgAagBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“humanist, a seeker and [] globalist”</a> called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.andersbolling.com/about-me/" href="https://www.andersbolling.com/about-me/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Anders Bolling</a>, Baron was very open and honest about all his religious and political motivations.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d593"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7c8c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the following information (i.e., the bits of autobiography, the talk of motivations, etc.) come from an interview on YouTube called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8M8OmsCJM" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8M8OmsCJM" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Gerald Baron: To unite science and faith’</a>. In that interview (or at least in the written introduction), Baron tells us that he’s a Christian. He also says that his Christian faith “validates much of what the Bible tells us”. Indeed, Baron believes that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+such+example+is+the+studies+at+the+University+of+Virginia+that+show+compelling+evidence+of+reincarnation%22&sca_esv=587698495&source=hp&ei=LfFtZaejBcushbIP9OeiwAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZW3_PR3mjBZqHx-5h3CWqLI-Urbb9JFQ&ved=0ahUKEwjn7biqjfaCAxVLVkEAHfSzCFgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22One+such+example+is+the+studies+at+the+University+of+Virginia+that+show+compelling+evidence+of+reincarnation%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im4iT25lIHN1Y2ggZXhhbXBsZSBpcyB0aGUgc3R1ZGllcyBhdCB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBvZiBWaXJnaW5pYSB0aGF0IHNob3cgY29tcGVsbGluZyBldmlkZW5jZSBvZiByZWluY2FybmF0aW9uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22One+such+example+is+the+studies+at+the+University+of+Virginia+that+show+compelling+evidence+of+reincarnation%22&sca_esv=587698495&source=hp&ei=LfFtZaejBcushbIP9OeiwAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZW3_PR3mjBZqHx-5h3CWqLI-Urbb9JFQ&ved=0ahUKEwjn7biqjfaCAxVLVkEAHfSzCFgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22One+such+example+is+the+studies+at+the+University+of+Virginia+that+show+compelling+evidence+of+reincarnation%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im4iT25lIHN1Y2ggZXhhbXBsZSBpcyB0aGUgc3R1ZGllcyBhdCB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBvZiBWaXJnaW5pYSB0aGF0IHNob3cgY29tcGVsbGluZyBldmlkZW5jZSBvZiByZWluY2FybmF0aW9uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“[o]ne such example is the studies at the University of Virginia that show compelling evidence of reincarnation”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c6f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron also almost perfectly expresses the position of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Intelligent Design</a> in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22There+is+evolution%2C+but+it+is+not+random.+The+digital+code+in+our+DNA+is+remarkably+complex+and+carries+meaning.+In+science+we+know+of+no+process+of+creating+meaningful+code+other+than+through+an+intelligent+mind%22&sca_esv=587698495&ei=bPFtZZKDGOSqhbIPsb-OmAI&ved=0ahUKEwiS6dDIjfaCAxVkVUEAHbGfAyMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22There+is+evolution%2C+but+it+is+not+random.+The+digital+code+in+our+DNA+is+remarkably+complex+and+carries+meaning.+In+science+we+know+of+no+process+of+creating+meaningful+code+other+than+through+an+intelligent+mind%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAi1gEiVGhlcmUgaXMgZXZvbHV0aW9uLCBidXQgaXQgaXMgbm90IHJhbmRvbS4gVGhlIGRpZ2l0YWwgY29kZSBpbiBvdXIgRE5BIGlzIHJlbWFya2FibHkgY29tcGxleCBhbmQgY2FycmllcyBtZWFuaW5nLiBJbiBzY2llbmNlIHdlIGtub3cgb2Ygbm8gcHJvY2VzcyBvZiBjcmVhdGluZyBtZWFuaW5nZnVsIGNvZGUgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aHJvdWdoIGFuIGludGVsbGlnZW50IG1pbmQiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22There+is+evolution%2C+but+it+is+not+random.+The+digital+code+in+our+DNA+is+remarkably+complex+and+carries+meaning.+In+science+we+know+of+no+process+of+creating+meaningful+code+other+than+through+an+intelligent+mind%22&sca_esv=587698495&ei=bPFtZZKDGOSqhbIPsb-OmAI&ved=0ahUKEwiS6dDIjfaCAxVkVUEAHbGfAyMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22There+is+evolution%2C+but+it+is+not+random.+The+digital+code+in+our+DNA+is+remarkably+complex+and+carries+meaning.+In+science+we+know+of+no+process+of+creating+meaningful+code+other+than+through+an+intelligent+mind%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAi1gEiVGhlcmUgaXMgZXZvbHV0aW9uLCBidXQgaXQgaXMgbm90IHJhbmRvbS4gVGhlIGRpZ2l0YWwgY29kZSBpbiBvdXIgRE5BIGlzIHJlbWFya2FibHkgY29tcGxleCBhbmQgY2FycmllcyBtZWFuaW5nLiBJbiBzY2llbmNlIHdlIGtub3cgb2Ygbm8gcHJvY2VzcyBvZiBjcmVhdGluZyBtZWFuaW5nZnVsIGNvZGUgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aHJvdWdoIGFuIGludGVsbGlnZW50IG1pbmQiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a> passage:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d520"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“There is evolution, but it is not random. The digital code in our DNA is remarkably complex and carries meaning. In science we know of no process of creating meaningful code other than through an intelligent mind.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="efe0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron then ties neo-Darwinism to, yes, physicalism. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See Baron <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-failure-of-exclusive-darwinism-part-one-68284ca4aded" href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-failure-of-exclusive-darwinism-part-one-68284ca4aded" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="91ff"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So perhaps critics can mention religious, etc. motivations because anti-materialists like Baron, Bernardo Kastrup, etc. do so <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">themselves</em> — frequently.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3939"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Finally, if it’s a bad thing to mention such motivations in a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">critical</em> manner, then shouldn’t it be a bad thing to mention them (as Baron and Bolling did in their interview) in a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">positive</em> manner too?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8d69" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Gerald Baron’s Religious and Political Views</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="927f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="736" data-image-id="1*w5vMbtwRMG9vWGKYUUir1g.png" data-width="938" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*w5vMbtwRMG9vWGKYUUir1g.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a353"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald Baron’s case against physicalism is hardly motivated by metaphysical and logical argumentation. Indeed, Baron hardly ever (perhaps never) quotes physicalists (certainly not contemporary philosophers) arguing (in detail) for physicalism. (To be clear. I’ve never read Baron doing so in all the stuff I’ve read. It is of course possible that he’s done so elsewhere.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e72e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, t<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+above+argument+may+suggest+my+primary+concern+is+how+that+belief+system+determines+our+values%2C+priorities+and+actions.+But+that+is+not+my+primary%C2%A0reason.%22&sca_esv=588279375&source=hp&ei=AQ9wZa_0AvKB9u8PvsqtkAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXAdEaaW6uDkreaZkDTCMZekmyPeSlV_&ved=0ahUKEwjv-MaHkvqCAxXygP0HHT5lC6IQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22The+above+argument+may+suggest+my+primary+concern+is+how+that+belief+system+determines+our+values%2C+priorities+and+actions.+But+that+is+not+my+primary%C2%A0reason.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqABIlRoZSBhYm92ZSBhcmd1bWVudCBtYXkgc3VnZ2VzdCBteSBwcmltYXJ5IGNvbmNlcm4gaXMgaG93IHRoYXQgYmVsaWVmIHN5c3RlbSBkZXRlcm1pbmVzIG91ciB2YWx1ZXMsIHByaW9yaXRpZXMgYW5kIGFjdGlvbnMuIEJ1dCB0aGF0IGlzIG5vdCBteSBwcmltYXJ5wqByZWFzb24uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+above+argument+may+suggest+my+primary+concern+is+how+that+belief+system+determines+our+values%2C+priorities+and+actions.+But+that+is+not+my+primary%C2%A0reason.%22&sca_esv=588279375&source=hp&ei=AQ9wZa_0AvKB9u8PvsqtkAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXAdEaaW6uDkreaZkDTCMZekmyPeSlV_&ved=0ahUKEwjv-MaHkvqCAxXygP0HHT5lC6IQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22The+above+argument+may+suggest+my+primary+concern+is+how+that+belief+system+determines+our+values%2C+priorities+and+actions.+But+that+is+not+my+primary%C2%A0reason.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqABIlRoZSBhYm92ZSBhcmd1bWVudCBtYXkgc3VnZ2VzdCBteSBwcmltYXJ5IGNvbmNlcm4gaXMgaG93IHRoYXQgYmVsaWVmIHN5c3RlbSBkZXRlcm1pbmVzIG91ciB2YWx1ZXMsIHByaW9yaXRpZXMgYW5kIGFjdGlvbnMuIEJ1dCB0aGF0IGlzIG5vdCBteSBwcmltYXJ5wqByZWFzb24uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">his is Baron himself</a> on the subject of physicalism:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="314a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The above argument may suggest my primary concern is how that belief system </i>[physicalism]<i> determines our values, priorities and actions. But that is not my primary reason.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+physicalism+is+true%2C+then+the+destructive+results+of+living+without+any+possible+meaning+or+purpose+and+choosing+our+own+versions+of+right+and+wrong+without+accountability+should+and+will+play+out+as+the+laws+of+nature%C2%A0demand.%22&sca_esv=588279375&source=hp&ei=Qg9wZeXkEpCF9u8P956emAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXAdUku_oI8zFvKcHIuLQ6GJIha9Bnb1&ved=0ahUKEwjljdamkvqCAxWQgv0HHXePBzMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22If+physicalism+is+true%2C+then+the+destructive+results+of+living+without+any+possible+meaning+or+purpose+and+choosing+our+own+versions+of+right+and+wrong+without+accountability+should+and+will+play+out+as+the+laws+of+nature%C2%A0demand.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IugBIklmIHBoeXNpY2FsaXNtIGlzIHRydWUsIHRoZW4gdGhlIGRlc3RydWN0aXZlIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgbGl2aW5nIHdpdGhvdXQgYW55IHBvc3NpYmxlIG1lYW5pbmcgb3IgcHVycG9zZSBhbmQgY2hvb3Npbmcgb3VyIG93biB2ZXJzaW9ucyBvZiByaWdodCBhbmQgd3Jvbmcgd2l0aG91dCBhY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eSBzaG91bGQgYW5kIHdpbGwgcGxheSBvdXQgYXMgdGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgbmF0dXJlwqBkZW1hbmQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+physicalism+is+true%2C+then+the+destructive+results+of+living+without+any+possible+meaning+or+purpose+and+choosing+our+own+versions+of+right+and+wrong+without+accountability+should+and+will+play+out+as+the+laws+of+nature%C2%A0demand.%22&sca_esv=588279375&source=hp&ei=Qg9wZeXkEpCF9u8P956emAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXAdUku_oI8zFvKcHIuLQ6GJIha9Bnb1&ved=0ahUKEwjljdamkvqCAxWQgv0HHXePBzMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22If+physicalism+is+true%2C+then+the+destructive+results+of+living+without+any+possible+meaning+or+purpose+and+choosing+our+own+versions+of+right+and+wrong+without+accountability+should+and+will+play+out+as+the+laws+of+nature%C2%A0demand.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IugBIklmIHBoeXNpY2FsaXNtIGlzIHRydWUsIHRoZW4gdGhlIGRlc3RydWN0aXZlIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgbGl2aW5nIHdpdGhvdXQgYW55IHBvc3NpYmxlIG1lYW5pbmcgb3IgcHVycG9zZSBhbmQgY2hvb3Npbmcgb3VyIG93biB2ZXJzaW9ucyBvZiByaWdodCBhbmQgd3Jvbmcgd2l0aG91dCBhY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eSBzaG91bGQgYW5kIHdpbGwgcGxheSBvdXQgYXMgdGhlIGxhd3Mgb2YgbmF0dXJlwqBkZW1hbmQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">then continues</a> by more or less saying that this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> indeed his “primary reason”:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8415"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If physicalism is true, then the destructive results of living without any possible meaning or purpose and choosing our own versions of right and wrong without accountability should and will play out as the laws of nature demand.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5fe7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22But%2C+physicalism+is+not+true%2C+of+that+I+am+fully+convinced.+Yet%2C+because+that+is+the+belief+system+that+is+widely+promoted+by+scientists%2C+philosophers%2C+scientists+speaking+as+philosophers%2C+educators+and+journalists%2C+choices+made+individually+and+corporate+in+our+culture+are+based+on+false+premises.+If+the+physicalist+belief+system+is+harmful+to+individual+people+and+societies+as+I+believe+it+is%2C+the+harm+is+multiplied+by+the+false%C2%A0basis.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=r5JwZauZB4HChbIP15qxoAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCgvyVllkCj4jnWtKP7K1JxAFByzEAK&ved=0ahUKEwjrrOLRj_uCAxUBYUEAHVdNDHQQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22But%2C+physicalism+is+not+true%2C+of+that+I+am+fully+convinced.+Yet%2C+because+that+is+the+belief+system+that+is+widely+promoted+by+scientists%2C+philosophers%2C+scientists+speaking+as+philosophers%2C+educators+and+journalists%2C+choices+made+individually+and+corporate+in+our+culture+are+based+on+false+premises.+If+the+physicalist+belief+system+is+harmful+to+individual+people+and+societies+as+I+believe+it+is%2C+the+harm+is+multiplied+by+the+false%C2%A0basis.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22But%2C+physicalism+is+not+true%2C+of+that+I+am+fully+convinced.+Yet%2C+because+that+is+the+belief+system+that+is+widely+promoted+by+scientists%2C+philosophers%2C+scientists+speaking+as+philosophers%2C+educators+and+journalists%2C+choices+made+individually+and+corporate+in+our+culture+are+based+on+false+premises.+If+the+physicalist+belief+system+is+harmful+to+individual+people+and+societies+as+I+believe+it+is%2C+the+harm+is+multiplied+by+the+false%C2%A0basis.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=r5JwZauZB4HChbIP15qxoAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCgvyVllkCj4jnWtKP7K1JxAFByzEAK&ved=0ahUKEwjrrOLRj_uCAxUBYUEAHVdNDHQQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22But%2C+physicalism+is+not+true%2C+of+that+I+am+fully+convinced.+Yet%2C+because+that+is+the+belief+system+that+is+widely+promoted+by+scientists%2C+philosophers%2C+scientists+speaking+as+philosophers%2C+educators+and+journalists%2C+choices+made+individually+and+corporate+in+our+culture+are+based+on+false+premises.+If+the+physicalist+belief+system+is+harmful+to+individual+people+and+societies+as+I+believe+it+is%2C+the+harm+is+multiplied+by+the+false%C2%A0basis.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>, Baron then sets out what can only be described as his <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">political agenda</em>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="dd8f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[P]<i>hysicalism is not true, of that I am fully convinced. Yet, because that is the belief system that is widely promoted by scientists, philosophers, scientists speaking as philosophers, educators and journalists, choices made individually and corporate in our culture are based on false premises. If the physicalist belief system is harmful to individual people and societies as I believe it is, the harm is multiplied by the false basis.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="52ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron then gets even more prophetic in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8M8OmsCJM" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8M8OmsCJM" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1c06"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>"Major paradigm shifts will be represented in some significant changes in worldview. The foundation of science is crumbling, and most scientists understand that.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="15f1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Just like Kastrup, Baron also uses terms from psychological literature, as in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%2C+but+perhaps+something+related+but+new%2C+a+syncretistic+and+more+universal+spirituality+that+is+thoroughly+transcendent.+Perhaps+Richard+Rohr%27s+The+Universal+Christ+points+the+way+to+the+future+of%C2%A0belief.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=TZNwZdugMveChbIP1syIyAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXChXSOo2Izs94fTOp1zkBBUFiAr86ut&ved=0ahUKEwib-7idkPuCAxV3QUEAHVYmAikQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%2C+but+perhaps+something+related+but+new%2C+a+syncretistic+and+more+universal+spirituality+that+is+thoroughly+transcendent.+Perhaps+Richard+Rohr%27s+The+Universal+Christ+points+the+way+to+the+future+of%C2%A0belief.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%2C+but+perhaps+something+related+but+new%2C+a+syncretistic+and+more+universal+spirituality+that+is+thoroughly+transcendent.+Perhaps+Richard+Rohr%27s+The+Universal+Christ+points+the+way+to+the+future+of%C2%A0belief.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=TZNwZdugMveChbIP1syIyAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXChXSOo2Izs94fTOp1zkBBUFiAr86ut&ved=0ahUKEwib-7idkPuCAxV3QUEAHVYmAikQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22My+crusade+then%2C+if+there+is+one%2C+is+to+expose+the+false+teaching+that+physicalism+represents+and+in+doing+so+help+resolve+the+dissonance.+Resolving+this+may+well+mean+not+a+return+to+traditional+Christian+beliefs%2C+but+perhaps+something+related+but+new%2C+a+syncretistic+and+more+universal+spirituality+that+is+thoroughly+transcendent.+Perhaps+Richard+Rohr%27s+The+Universal+Christ+points+the+way+to+the+future+of%C2%A0belief.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">:</strong></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9849"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“My crusade then, if there is one, is to expose the false teaching that physicalism represents and in doing so help resolve the dissonance. Resolving this may well mean not a return to traditional Christian beliefs, but perhaps something related but new, a syncretistic and more universal spirituality that is thoroughly transcendent. <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Christ-Forgotten-Reality-Everything-ebook/dp/B07B77R8T7/ref=sr_1_1?crid=5YL7O3FUKSLX&dchild=1&keywords=universal+christ&qid=1607282195&s=digital-text&sprefix=universal+ch%2Cdigital-text%2C235&sr=1-1" href="https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Christ-Forgotten-Reality-Everything-ebook/dp/B07B77R8T7/ref=sr_1_1?crid=5YL7O3FUKSLX&dchild=1&keywords=universal+christ&qid=1607282195&s=digital-text&sprefix=universal+ch%2Cdigital-text%2C235&sr=1-1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Perhaps Richard Rohr’s The Universal Christ points the way to the future of belief.</a>”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="530a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Baron is indeed on a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">crusade</em> against physicalism which, it can be argued, has very little to do with metaphysics, logic and/or argumentation. Instead, Baron’s (to use his own words again) “primary reason” for his crusade in that he believes that physicalism corrupts “our culture” as a whole.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="3f2f" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Gerald Baron on Being Called a “Science-Denier”</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1e07"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="590" data-image-id="1*3FyKTRps5HfHR7cDjqZ0Ug.png" data-width="625" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*3FyKTRps5HfHR7cDjqZ0Ug.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">New versions of the idea of “false consciousness” occur all the time.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="b240"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald Baron blames “the media” for what he takes to be the embrace of physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He believes that the media <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22stands+for+Fear%2C+Uncertainty%2C+Doubt+and+Outrage%22&sca_esv=587698495&source=hp&ei=5PFtZfaFHt6ohbIPxfKy4A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZW3_9HJbqH5CyWESY_9ZT9y3xf_xtIFc&ved=0ahUKEwj2h_OBjvaCAxVeVEEAHUW5DNwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22stands+for+Fear%2C+Uncertainty%2C+Doubt+and+Outrage%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjEic3RhbmRzIGZvciBGZWFyLCBVbmNlcnRhaW50eSwgRG91YnQgYW5kIE91dHJhZ2UiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI3whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBsAGgAbABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22stands+for+Fear%2C+Uncertainty%2C+Doubt+and+Outrage%22&sca_esv=587698495&source=hp&ei=5PFtZfaFHt6ohbIPxfKy4A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZW3_9HJbqH5CyWESY_9ZT9y3xf_xtIFc&ved=0ahUKEwj2h_OBjvaCAxVeVEEAHUW5DNwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22stands+for+Fear%2C+Uncertainty%2C+Doubt+and+Outrage%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjEic3RhbmRzIGZvciBGZWFyLCBVbmNlcnRhaW50eSwgRG91YnQgYW5kIE91dHJhZ2UiMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI3whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBsAGgAbABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and Outrage”</a>. More relevantly, Baron believes that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the media</em> is to blame for people not upholding his own (i.e., non-physicalist and religious) views. (This is much like the position which many political activists take toward the media when they too come across people with very different views to their own.)</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="e160"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="755" data-image-id="1*oXL7q6L2jnz9ftDcCzrn1Q.png" data-width="510" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*oXL7q6L2jnz9ftDcCzrn1Q.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">Baron has written two books about the media: </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Now-Too-Late-Survival-Corporate/dp/0130461393" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Now-Too-Late-Survival-Corporate/dp/0130461393" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--figure-em">Now is Too Late: Survival in an Era of Instant News</em></strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"> and </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Hats-White-Activists-Almost/dp/172724706X" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Hats-White-Activists-Almost/dp/172724706X" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--figure-em">Black Hats White Hats: Why Activists Almost Always Win and How to Defeat Them</em></strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">.</strong></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7389"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, if you don’t like an individual’s or some group’s views, then blame <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the media</em>. (Or “media brainwashing”, as teens often put it.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="618e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Or if someone holds a view you find distasteful, then blame <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the media</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a240"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, all the above are variations on the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">false consciousness</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>theme.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="296d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, politics isn’t going to be discussed here. However, Baron does tie the (Platonic) Media to, yes, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+Baron+-+%22our+culture%27s+embrace+of+physicalism%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=71JxZe6LGtuFhbIP_4uFgAs&ved=0ahUKEwiuv_f9xvyCAxXbQkEAHf9FAbAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Gerald+Baron+-+%22our+culture%27s+embrace+of+physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiNUdlcmFsZCBCYXJvbiAtICJvdXIgY3VsdHVyZSdzIGVtYnJhY2Ugb2YgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20iMg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA0iMBlAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gerald+Baron+-+%22our+culture%27s+embrace+of+physicalism%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=71JxZe6LGtuFhbIP_4uFgAs&ved=0ahUKEwiuv_f9xvyCAxXbQkEAHf9FAbAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Gerald+Baron+-+%22our+culture%27s+embrace+of+physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiNUdlcmFsZCBCYXJvbiAtICJvdXIgY3VsdHVyZSdzIGVtYnJhY2Ugb2YgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20iMg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA0iMBlAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“our culture’s embrace of physicalism”</a>.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>[See also Kastrup’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iai.tv/articles/materialism-as-a-political-weapon-bernardo-kastrup-auid-2574" href="https://iai.tv/articles/materialism-as-a-political-weapon-bernardo-kastrup-auid-2574" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Materialism as a political weapon’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5496"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More specifically, Baron <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22+what+is+most+important+to+me+is+the+fact+we+are+continually+told+that+if+you+do+not+accept+the+belief+system+of+physicalism%2C+you+are+a+science-denier.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=PZZwZdLlNqCG0PEP7p2ZoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCkTbjkiQ-QZEZ2Ro4tiN5jISkWTEQ-&ved=0ahUKEwiS-IeEk_uCAxUgAzQIHe5OBvQQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22+what+is+most+important+to+me+is+the+fact+we+are+continually+told+that+if+you+do+not+accept+the+belief+system+of+physicalism%2C+you+are+a+science-denier.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpkBIiB3aGF0IGlzIG1vc3QgaW1wb3J0YW50IHRvIG1lIGlzIHRoZSBmYWN0IHdlIGFyZSBjb250aW51YWxseSB0b2xkIHRoYXQgaWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBhY2NlcHQgdGhlIGJlbGllZiBzeXN0ZW0gb2YgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20sIHlvdSBhcmUgYSBzY2llbmNlLWRlbmllci4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22+what+is+most+important+to+me+is+the+fact+we+are+continually+told+that+if+you+do+not+accept+the+belief+system+of+physicalism%2C+you+are+a+science-denier.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=PZZwZdLlNqCG0PEP7p2ZoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCkTbjkiQ-QZEZ2Ro4tiN5jISkWTEQ-&ved=0ahUKEwiS-IeEk_uCAxUgAzQIHe5OBvQQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22+what+is+most+important+to+me+is+the+fact+we+are+continually+told+that+if+you+do+not+accept+the+belief+system+of+physicalism%2C+you+are+a+science-denier.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpkBIiB3aGF0IGlzIG1vc3QgaW1wb3J0YW50IHRvIG1lIGlzIHRoZSBmYWN0IHdlIGFyZSBjb250aW51YWxseSB0b2xkIHRoYXQgaWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBhY2NlcHQgdGhlIGJlbGllZiBzeXN0ZW0gb2YgcGh5c2ljYWxpc20sIHlvdSBhcmUgYSBzY2llbmNlLWRlbmllci4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1228"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hat is most important to me is the fact we are continually told that if you do not accept the belief system of physicalism, </i>[then]<i> you are a science-denier.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2543"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage is bizarre because I can honestly say that I’ve never once come across anyone stating that “if you do not accept the belief system of physicalism, [then] you are a science-denier”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4b22"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Never once.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a499"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, Baron may believe that those precise words needn’t be used, just variations thereon.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3de3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So which actual words does Baron believe have been used, and has he ever quoted them?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="60a2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whichever way this supposed categorical statement about physicalism and science-denial is expressed, can Baron cite any examples of scientists (or others) mentioning physicalism in this way, and then saying that if you don’t accept it, then you simply <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be a “science-denier”?…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ce45"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Unless this<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>is physicalism by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">default</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f59d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, if a scientist doesn’t accept religious, paranormal, spiritual, etc. explanations of any given <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em>, then he simply <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be a physicalist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ed2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now take an admittedly extreme example.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a8e6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If a scientist or layperson doesn’t accept astrology (or the existence of ley lines), then does this also mean that he simply <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> also be committed to physicalism?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f815"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Alternatively, say that someone — anyone — doesn’t accept Baron’s championship (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-pauli-jung-collaboration-on-what-is-real-c019d20f7b47" href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-pauli-jung-collaboration-on-what-is-real-c019d20f7b47" target="_blank">here</a>) of Carl Jung’s “objective reality” (i.e., the unconscious), is such a person <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">automatically</em> a physicalist?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f1e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Does all this mean that the word “physicalist” (or “materialist”) is simply a stand-in for the following position? —</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="fc65"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">All those people who don’t accept my own religious and non-physicalist views.</span></span></span></blockquote><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="da9e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="497" data-image-id="1*s4oFc37KQ4heEvvyioEXFQ.png" data-width="491" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*s4oFc37KQ4heEvvyioEXFQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Bernardo Kastrup — spiritual idealist and Baron’s fellow crusader against materialism and “mainstream science”.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f95d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Bernardo Kastrup, for one, seems to go in for this kind of thing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3989"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup regards almost everyone under the sun outside his own idealist “school” (from <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Guardian</em> journalists, biologists, physicists, to people he gets into arguments with on YouTube) as “materialists”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7cca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, we end up with the following <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Manichean</a> war: (supposed) materialists vs Kastrupian idealists and Jungians, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Christian+dual-aspect+monist&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=7VFxZYTFCoeyhbIPic6KuA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFf_cJdtp0NBdKE62S42n5qaXrpXvNs&ved=0ahUKEwjE7-SCxvyCAxUHWUEAHQmnAvcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Christian+dual-aspect+monist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxDaHJpc3RpYW4gZHVhbC1hc3BlY3QgbW9uaXN0MgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgQQIRgVSMEPUABYmgxwAHgAkAEAmAGHAaABhgKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Christian+dual-aspect+monist&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=7VFxZYTFCoeyhbIPic6KuA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFf_cJdtp0NBdKE62S42n5qaXrpXvNs&ved=0ahUKEwjE7-SCxvyCAxUHWUEAHQmnAvcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Christian+dual-aspect+monist&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhxDaHJpc3RpYW4gZHVhbC1hc3BlY3QgbW9uaXN0MgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgQQIRgVSMEPUABYmgxwAHgAkAEAmAGHAaABhgKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Christian dual-aspect monists</a>, etc.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9e4e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Are Baron’s Scientific Big Names Really Physicalists?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2ec2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="584" data-image-id="1*sicf7un8rbjO7nbFgImZQw.png" data-width="447" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*sicf7un8rbjO7nbFgImZQw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="6167"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald Baron’s main point is that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=mVNxZdqvDoSwhbIPs5W1gAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFhqTQhsz7z2EmXpQUqNd4Y2BoeJoLE&ved=0ahUKEwia4PPOx_yCAxUEWEEAHbNKDYAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjkidGhlIG1haW5zdHJlYW0gcG9zaXRpb24gb2Ygc2NpZW5jZSB0b2RheSBpcyBwaHlzaWNhbGlzbSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI2whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBdKABdKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=mVNxZdqvDoSwhbIPs5W1gAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFhqTQhsz7z2EmXpQUqNd4Y2BoeJoLE&ved=0ahUKEwia4PPOx_yCAxUEWEEAHbNKDYAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+mainstream+position+of+science+today+is+physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjkidGhlIG1haW5zdHJlYW0gcG9zaXRpb24gb2Ygc2NpZW5jZSB0b2RheSBpcyBwaHlzaWNhbGlzbSIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI2whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBdKABdKoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the mainstream position of science today is physicalism”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d7e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is it?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fbf5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron targets various scientific (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">big names</em>. In his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Leading+scientists+such+as+the+late+Stephen+Hawking%2C+Brian+Greene%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Sean+Carroll%2C+Brian+Cox%2C+Richard+Dawkins+and+a+great+many+others+are+assuming+the+mantle+of+philosophy+and+from+that+esteemed+podium+are+the+prophets%2C+priests+and+evangelists+of+the+quasi-religion+of+physicalism.+Our+education+system+tolerates+no+alternative+view+other+than+physicalism+and+the+exclusive+claims+of+evolution+despite+widespread+and+increasing+scientific+discomfort+with+the+claims.+This+is+the+distortion+the+current+legal+understanding+of+separation+of+church+and+state+requires.+Our+science+journalists+and+major+media+channels+rarely+allow+any+exposure+to+data%2C+reports%2C+discoveries+or+discussion+that+question+the+tenets+of+physicalist+belief.+If+they+do%2C+ardent+defenders+of+physicalism+rally+to+call+for+the+dismissal+of+the+offending+editors.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=NZlwZY_hAcjn0PEPxabxiA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCnRQX7o-swAQUJ2BZCYm57aXxSKvHX&ved=0ahUKEwjPz4XulfuCAxXIMzQIHUVTHPEQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Leading+scientists+such+as+the+late+Stephen+Hawking%2C+Brian+Greene%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Sean+Carroll%2C+Brian+Cox%2C+Richard+Dawkins+and+a+great+many+others+are+assuming+the+mantle+of+philosophy+and+from+that+esteemed+podium+are+the+prophets%2C+priests+and+evangelists+of+the+quasi-religion+of+physicalism.+Our+education+system+tolerates+no+alternative+view+other+than+physicalism+and+the+exclusive+claims+of+evolution+despite+widespread+and+increasing+scientific+discomfort+with+the+claims.+This+is+the+distortion+the+current+legal+understanding+of+separation+of+church+and+state+requires.+Our+science+journalists+and+major+media+channels+rarely+allow+any+exposure+to+data%2C+reports%2C+discoveries+or+discussion+that+question+the+tenets+of+physicalist+belief.+If+they+do%2C+ardent+defenders+of+physicalism+rally+to+call+for+the+dismissal+of+the+offending+editors.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Leading+scientists+such+as+the+late+Stephen+Hawking%2C+Brian+Greene%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Sean+Carroll%2C+Brian+Cox%2C+Richard+Dawkins+and+a+great+many+others+are+assuming+the+mantle+of+philosophy+and+from+that+esteemed+podium+are+the+prophets%2C+priests+and+evangelists+of+the+quasi-religion+of+physicalism.+Our+education+system+tolerates+no+alternative+view+other+than+physicalism+and+the+exclusive+claims+of+evolution+despite+widespread+and+increasing+scientific+discomfort+with+the+claims.+This+is+the+distortion+the+current+legal+understanding+of+separation+of+church+and+state+requires.+Our+science+journalists+and+major+media+channels+rarely+allow+any+exposure+to+data%2C+reports%2C+discoveries+or+discussion+that+question+the+tenets+of+physicalist+belief.+If+they+do%2C+ardent+defenders+of+physicalism+rally+to+call+for+the+dismissal+of+the+offending+editors.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=NZlwZY_hAcjn0PEPxabxiA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCnRQX7o-swAQUJ2BZCYm57aXxSKvHX&ved=0ahUKEwjPz4XulfuCAxXIMzQIHUVTHPEQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Leading+scientists+such+as+the+late+Stephen+Hawking%2C+Brian+Greene%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Sean+Carroll%2C+Brian+Cox%2C+Richard+Dawkins+and+a+great+many+others+are+assuming+the+mantle+of+philosophy+and+from+that+esteemed+podium+are+the+prophets%2C+priests+and+evangelists+of+the+quasi-religion+of+physicalism.+Our+education+system+tolerates+no+alternative+view+other+than+physicalism+and+the+exclusive+claims+of+evolution+despite+widespread+and+increasing+scientific+discomfort+with+the+claims.+This+is+the+distortion+the+current+legal+understanding+of+separation+of+church+and+state+requires.+Our+science+journalists+and+major+media+channels+rarely+allow+any+exposure+to+data%2C+reports%2C+discoveries+or+discussion+that+question+the+tenets+of+physicalist+belief.+If+they+do%2C+ardent+defenders+of+physicalism+rally+to+call+for+the+dismissal+of+the+offending+editors.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e0f4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Leading scientists such as the late Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins and a great many others are assuming the mantle of philosophy and from that esteemed podium are the prophets, priests and evangelists of the quasi-religion of physicalism. Our education system tolerates no alternative view other than physicalism and the exclusive claims of evolution despite widespread and increasing scientific discomfort with the claims. </i>[]<i> Our science journalists and major media channels rarely allow any exposure to data, reports, discoveries or discussion that question the tenets of physicalist belief. If they do, ardent defenders of physicalism rally to call for the dismissal of the offending editors.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d895"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very similar</em> to the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22But+science-as-you-know-it+implicitly+adopts+the+materialist+ontology.+Perhaps+not+all+scientists+do+this%3B+perhaps+even+only+a+minority+does.+But+this+minority+is+vocal+and+influential.+They+clearly+control+where+the+research+funding+goes%2C+for+projects+that+do+not+assume+the+materialist+metaphysics+collectively+get+much+less+funding+than+projects+that+do.+%5B%5D+Moreover%2C+this+vocal+minority+also+controls+how+science-as-you-know-it+is+presented+in+the+media%2C+in+school+curricula%2C+and+to+the+culture+at+large.+Just+think+of+people+like+Lawrence+Krauss%2C+Richard+Dawkins%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Stephen+Hawking%2C+and+others+such+specialized+prodigies+of+rhetoric+and+intellectual+puzzles%2C+who+cavalierly+ignore+rigorous+logic%2C+epistemology%2C+and+ontology.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=X5lwZev7IPTG0PEPlNeekAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCnbyOSYXsZ4PMXoTyq02LBjFng3qSs&ved=0ahUKEwirp6iClvuCAxV0IzQIHZSrB8IQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22But+science-as-you-know-it+implicitly+adopts+the+materialist+ontology.+Perhaps+not+all+scientists+do+this%3B+perhaps+even+only+a+minority+does.+But+this+minority+is+vocal+and+influential.+They+clearly+control+where+the+research+funding+goes%2C+for+projects+that+do+not+assume+the+materialist+metaphysics+collectively+get+much+less+funding+than+projects+that+do.+%5B%5D+Moreover%2C+this+vocal+minority+also+controls+how+science-as-you-know-it+is+presented+in+the+media%2C+in+school+curricula%2C+and+to+the+culture+at+large.+Just+think+of+people+like+Lawrence+Krauss%2C+Richard+Dawkins%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Stephen+Hawking%2C+and+others+such+specialized+prodigies+of+rhetoric+and+intellectual+puzzles%2C+who+cavalierly+ignore+rigorous+logic%2C+epistemology%2C+and+ontology.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22But+science-as-you-know-it+implicitly+adopts+the+materialist+ontology.+Perhaps+not+all+scientists+do+this%3B+perhaps+even+only+a+minority+does.+But+this+minority+is+vocal+and+influential.+They+clearly+control+where+the+research+funding+goes%2C+for+projects+that+do+not+assume+the+materialist+metaphysics+collectively+get+much+less+funding+than+projects+that+do.+%5B%5D+Moreover%2C+this+vocal+minority+also+controls+how+science-as-you-know-it+is+presented+in+the+media%2C+in+school+curricula%2C+and+to+the+culture+at+large.+Just+think+of+people+like+Lawrence+Krauss%2C+Richard+Dawkins%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Stephen+Hawking%2C+and+others+such+specialized+prodigies+of+rhetoric+and+intellectual+puzzles%2C+who+cavalierly+ignore+rigorous+logic%2C+epistemology%2C+and+ontology.%22&sca_esv=588395872&source=hp&ei=X5lwZev7IPTG0PEPlNeekAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXCnbyOSYXsZ4PMXoTyq02LBjFng3qSs&ved=0ahUKEwirp6iClvuCAxV0IzQIHZSrB8IQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22But+science-as-you-know-it+implicitly+adopts+the+materialist+ontology.+Perhaps+not+all+scientists+do+this%3B+perhaps+even+only+a+minority+does.+But+this+minority+is+vocal+and+influential.+They+clearly+control+where+the+research+funding+goes%2C+for+projects+that+do+not+assume+the+materialist+metaphysics+collectively+get+much+less+funding+than+projects+that+do.+%5B%5D+Moreover%2C+this+vocal+minority+also+controls+how+science-as-you-know-it+is+presented+in+the+media%2C+in+school+curricula%2C+and+to+the+culture+at+large.+Just+think+of+people+like+Lawrence+Krauss%2C+Richard+Dawkins%2C+Neil+deGrasse+Tyson%2C+Stephen+Hawking%2C+and+others+such+specialized+prodigies+of+rhetoric+and+intellectual+puzzles%2C+who+cavalierly+ignore+rigorous+logic%2C+epistemology%2C+and+ontology.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following one<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>from Kastrup</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d431"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But science-as-you-know-it implicitly adopts the materialist ontology. Perhaps not all scientists do this; perhaps even only a minority does. But this minority is vocal and influential. They clearly control where the research funding goes, for projects that do not assume the materialist metaphysics collectively get much less funding than projects that do. </i>[]<i> Moreover, this vocal minority also controls how science-as-you-know-it is presented in the media, in school curricula, and to the culture at large. Just think of people like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and others such specialized prodigies of rhetoric and intellectual puzzles, who cavalierly ignore rigorous logic, epistemology, and ontology.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="551f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Kastrup mentions Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking. And, guess what, Baron also mentions Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins. Indeed, not only are the names the same, so are the general positions.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="195c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The scientists Kastrup and Baron mention are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very</em> different to each other. So readers can suppose they’re all connected together (i.e., by Kastrup and Baron) because of their supposed commitment to physicalism (or materialism). Yet this is a philosophical position which they rarely (if ever) actually discuss.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d2fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Baron and Kastrup may believe that these scientific big names must have caught physicalism via some kind of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“virus of the mind”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2ed8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Baron refers almost exclusively to the writers of popular-science books and those scientists in the public eye. Perhaps Baron has a good reason to do this because he believes that these scientific <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">big names</em> are corrupting what he calls “our culture”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0733"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, I can only say that most — even all — the famous scientists Baron targets never even refer to “physicalism”. They certainly never class themselves as “physicalists”…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d39"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, these people are scientists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="33c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Physicalism” is a term of art, mainly used in analytic philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3c9a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1d57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The term “physicalism” dates back to the 1930s, and was first used by two logical positivists:<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Neurath" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Neurath" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Otto Neurath</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Rudolf Carnap">Rudolf Carnap</a>. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-6995-7_4" href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-6995-7_4" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> However, this term didn’t have a widespread use until the 1960s — or even later. Interesting enough, the long Wikipedia entry on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#:~:text=Physicalism%20encompasses%20matter%2C%20but%20also,physical%20in%20a%20monistic%20sense." href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#:~:text=Physicalism%20encompasses%20matter%2C%20but%20also,physical%20in%20a%20monistic%20sense." rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Physicalism’</a> only mentions “physics” (i.e., not “physicalism”) twice, and doesn’t refer to a single scientist. The same is broadly true of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s own entry on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Physicalism’</a>. (The bibliography doesn’t include a single work by a scientist.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="588c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As for scientists. I’ve read most of the the scientists that Baron mentions, and I don’t recall a single time they’ve used the term “physicalism”, let alone discussed it in any (philosophical) detail. Sure, I’m willing to be corrected on this. Perhaps some of these big names have indeed used the term “physicalism”. However, even if they have, then it must have been extremely rarely.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0e60"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, it can be guessed that some of the popular scientists Baron targets would argue — if only when pressed - that they have no need to use the term “physicalism”, or to commit themselves to this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosophical</em> doctrine. Instead, their views on science generally, as well as on particular scientific theories, are simply a product of tests, experiments, observations, theorising, mathematics, logical reasoning, etc., not the product of an arcane and academic doctrine which is mainly found in analytic philosophy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d3c1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This may be “philosophically naive” when it comes to scientists ignoring philosophy. However, it’s not being argued here that scientists deny all philosophical elements to their scientific theories and positions. No, this is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">specifically</em> about their supposed commitment to physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c8de"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So as hinted at earlier, the best Baron can do is opt for Kastrup’s position of physicalism-as-<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness" rel="noopener" target="_blank">false-consciousness</a> (or physicalism-by-osmosis).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="953a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, scientists — and just about everyone else who isn’t “spiritual”, religious, an idealist, etc. — must catch physicalism in the air without ever using that term, and certainly without thinking deeply (or philosophically) about it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="31d0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, physicalism<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>is a technical philosophical position which actually requires much (philosophical) thought. And I’d suggest that most scientists — and other offenders — don’t give physicalism that much thought…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c875"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, perhaps that acknowledgement can be made to actually work in favour of Baron’s own position!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bbf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, the (false) idea that scientists <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22blindly+accept+materialism%22&sca_esv=588417346&ei=Aa1wZZ3LMPyu5NoPld2KmAc&ved=0ahUKEwjdz4LfqPuCAxV8F1kFHZWuAnMQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22blindly+accept+materialism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHCJibGluZGx5IGFjY2VwdCBtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSJI1hJQxQVYtAtwAXgAkAEAmAHnAaAByQeqAQUwLjMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22blindly+accept+materialism%22&sca_esv=588417346&ei=Aa1wZZ3LMPyu5NoPld2KmAc&ved=0ahUKEwjdz4LfqPuCAxV8F1kFHZWuAnMQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22blindly+accept+materialism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHCJibGluZGx5IGFjY2VwdCBtYXRlcmlhbGlzbSJI1hJQxQVYtAtwAXgAkAEAmAHnAaAByQeqAQUwLjMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“blindly accept materialism”</a> actually works in Baron’s favour. (Even though most scientists don’t blindly accept materialism, and for all the reasons just given… and more.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cf62"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Baron <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">did</em> say that “the mainstream position of science today is physicalism”, and I’m saying that most scientists don’t philosophise about physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cc65"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So can Baron and Kastrup have it both ways?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1918"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The best that can be argued is that physicalism (Kastrup both implies and states this in his writings) is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">caught in the air,</em> or it influences scientists through osmosis (i.e., in today’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kastrup+-+%22materialist+culture%22&sca_esv=588417346&source=hp&ei=nKxwZaCuGs-HptQPmfGHsAs&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXC6rKGESFErm-oh0-p387r9ER5VE5J9&ved=0ahUKEwig7NeuqPuCAxXPg4kEHZn4AbYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Kastrup+-+%22materialist+culture%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih9LYXN0cnVwIC0gIm1hdGVyaWFsaXN0IGN1bHR1cmUiMgUQIRigAUipQlCpCFj2M3ABeACQAQCYAegBoAGVEaoBBTAuNC43uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECqAIKwgIQEAAYAxiPARjlAhjqAhiMA8ICEBAuGAMYjwEY5QIY6gIYjAPCAhMQABgDGI8BGOUCGOUCGOoCGIwDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICBRAuGIAEwgIEEAAYA8ICBRAAGIAEwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMY1ALCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCxAuGK8BGMcBGIAEwgIGEAAYFhge&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kastrup+-+%22materialist+culture%22&sca_esv=588417346&source=hp&ei=nKxwZaCuGs-HptQPmfGHsAs&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXC6rKGESFErm-oh0-p387r9ER5VE5J9&ved=0ahUKEwig7NeuqPuCAxXPg4kEHZn4AbYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Kastrup+-+%22materialist+culture%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih9LYXN0cnVwIC0gIm1hdGVyaWFsaXN0IGN1bHR1cmUiMgUQIRigAUipQlCpCFj2M3ABeACQAQCYAegBoAGVEaoBBTAuNC43uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECqAIKwgIQEAAYAxiPARjlAhjqAhiMA8ICEBAuGAMYjwEY5QIY6gIYjAPCAhMQABgDGI8BGOUCGOUCGOoCGIwDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICBRAuGIAEwgIEEAAYA8ICBRAAGIAEwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMY1ALCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCxAuGK8BGMcBGIAEwgIGEAAYFhge&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“materialist culture”</a>)…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fafe"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Baron and Kastrup can’t argue that scientists are “committed to physicalism”, and, at the very same time, also admit that scientists don’t think (or philosophise) about physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="81a9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Consequently, imbibing physicalism <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">unconsciousl</em>y, and being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">intellectually committed</em> to physicalism, are two very different things.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="c82e"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="8234"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="771e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> The following are examples of essays I’ve written on Philip Goff which <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">never</em> mention his religious and political views: <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.cantorsparadise.com/intrinsic-nature-philosopher-philip-goff-on-what-physics-leaves-out-dd977cb335f1" href="https://www.cantorsparadise.com/intrinsic-nature-philosopher-philip-goff-on-what-physics-leaves-out-dd977cb335f1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Intrinsic Nature: Philosopher Philip Goff on What Physics Leaves Out’</a>, ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/against-philip-goffs-panpsychist-phenomenal-bonding-ae8d27d152eb" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/against-philip-goffs-panpsychist-phenomenal-bonding-ae8d27d152eb" target="_blank">Against Philip Goff’s (Panpsychist) Phenomenal Bonding’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/philip-goffs-panpsychism-vs-sam-coleman-s-russellian-monism-61f65798df53" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/philip-goffs-panpsychism-vs-sam-coleman-s-russellian-monism-61f65798df53" target="_blank">‘Philip Goff’s Panpsychism vs. Sam Coleman’s Russellian Monism?’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/panpsychist-philip-goffs-combination-problem-little-conscious-subjects-and-emergence-d3a733c666cc#:~:text=Goff%20puts%20it%3A-,%E2%80%9CSomehow%20little%20subjects%2C%20such%20as%20electrons%20and%20quarks%2C%20come,the%20former%20from%20the%20latter%E2%80%A6" href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/panpsychist-philip-goffs-combination-problem-little-conscious-subjects-and-emergence-d3a733c666cc#:~:text=Goff%20puts%20it%3A-,%E2%80%9CSomehow%20little%20subjects%2C%20such%20as%20electrons%20and%20quarks%2C%20come,the%20former%20from%20the%20latter%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">‘Panpsychist Philip Goff’s Combination Problem: Little Conscious Subjects and Emergence’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2019/10/john-horgan-and-philip-goff-on.html" href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2019/10/john-horgan-and-philip-goff-on.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘John Horgan and Philip Goff on Panpsychism & Geocentrism’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/philip-goff-on-the-brute-identity-theory-flogging-a-dead-horse-4219db0c3f81#:~:text=Let%20me%20quote%20Philip%20Goff,and%20the%20case%20is%20closed." href="https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/philip-goff-on-the-brute-identity-theory-flogging-a-dead-horse-4219db0c3f81#:~:text=Let%20me%20quote%20Philip%20Goff,and%20the%20case%20is%20closed." target="_blank">‘Philip Goff on the Brute Identity Theory: Flogging a Dead Horse?’</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2017/09/philip-goffs-panpsychist-conceivability.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cmost%20panpsychists%20are%20motivated%20by,then%20P%20is%20possibly%20true.%E2%80%9D" href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2017/09/philip-goffs-panpsychist-conceivability.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cmost%20panpsychists%20are%20motivated%20by,then%20P%20is%20possibly%20true.%E2%80%9D" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Philip Goff’s Panpsychist Conceivability-to-Possibility Argument’</a>, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="22f2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> Where are the references to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior religious beliefs</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">motivations</em> in the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22now+take+Carl+Jung%27s+idea+%28as+expressed+by+Gerald+R.+Baron%29+that+%27the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+%5Bmind%5D+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%27.+%28It%27s+worth+noting+here+that+Pauli+offered+criticisms+of+Jung%27s+work%2C+particularly+of+the+notion+of+synchronicity.%29%0D%0A%22In+the+light+of+Jung%27s+reference+to+%27objective+reality%27%2C+it+can+be+said+that+Pauli+rejected+the+opposition+between+*objective+reality*+itself+%28or+%27ultimate+reality%27%29%2C+and+what+we+can+can+know+about+reality+%28as+did+Niels+Bohr%29.+In+other+words%2C+knowing+%27how+Nature+is%27+amounts+to+no+more+than+a+metaphysician%27s+dream.+All+we+actually+have+is+%27what+we+can+say+about+Nature%22%27.+And%2C+at+the+quantum-mechanical+level+at+least%2C+what+we+can+say+is+what+we+can+say+with+the+mathematics%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ain+conjunction+with+experiments%2C+tests%2C+observations%2C+etc.+Consequently%2C+just+about+everything+else+is+interpretational%2C+analogical+and%2For+imagistic+in+nature.+Indeed%2C+the+analogical%2C+imagistic+and+interpretational+stuff+can%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+often+does%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Amislead+us.+It+also+causes+endless+insoluble+controversies.%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=oElxZbKzIb7NhbIPsemguAg&ved=0ahUKEwiyg9iNvvyCAxW-ZkEAHbE0CIcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22now+take+Carl+Jung%27s+idea+%28as+expressed+by+Gerald+R.+Baron%29+that+%27the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+%5Bmind%5D+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%27.+%28It%27s+worth+noting+here+that+Pauli+offered+criticisms+of+Jung%27s+work%2C+particularly+of+the+notion+of+synchronicity.%29%0D%0A%22In+the+light+of+Jung%27s+reference+to+%27objective+reality%27%2C+it+can+be+said+that+Pauli+rejected+the+opposition+between+*objective+reality*+itself+%28or+%27ultimate+reality%27%29%2C+and+what+we+can+can+know+about+reality+%28as+did+Niels+Bohr%29.+In+other+words%2C+knowing+%27how+Nature+is%27+amounts+to+no+more+than+a+metaphysician%27s+dream.+All+we+actually+have+is+%27what+we+can+say+about+Nature%22%27.+And%2C+at+the+quantum-mechanical+level+at+least%2C+what+we+can+say+is+what+we+can+say+with+the+mathematics%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ain+conjunction+with+experiments%2C+tests%2C+observations%2C+etc.+Consequently%2C+just+about+everything+else+is+interpretational%2C+analogical+and%2For+imagistic+in+nature.+Indeed%2C+the+analogical%2C+imagistic+and+interpretational+stuff+can%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+often+does%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Amislead+us.+It+also+causes+endless+insoluble+controversies.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22now+take+Carl+Jung%27s+idea+%28as+expressed+by+Gerald+R.+Baron%29+that+%27the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+%5Bmind%5D+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%27.+%28It%27s+worth+noting+here+that+Pauli+offered+criticisms+of+Jung%27s+work%2C+particularly+of+the+notion+of+synchronicity.%29%0D%0A%22In+the+light+of+Jung%27s+reference+to+%27objective+reality%27%2C+it+can+be+said+that+Pauli+rejected+the+opposition+between+*objective+reality*+itself+%28or+%27ultimate+reality%27%29%2C+and+what+we+can+can+know+about+reality+%28as+did+Niels+Bohr%29.+In+other+words%2C+knowing+%27how+Nature+is%27+amounts+to+no+more+than+a+metaphysician%27s+dream.+All+we+actually+have+is+%27what+we+can+say+about+Nature%22%27.+And%2C+at+the+quantum-mechanical+level+at+least%2C+what+we+can+say+is+what+we+can+say+with+the+mathematics%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ain+conjunction+with+experiments%2C+tests%2C+observations%2C+etc.+Consequently%2C+just+about+everything+else+is+interpretational%2C+analogical+and%2For+imagistic+in+nature.+Indeed%2C+the+analogical%2C+imagistic+and+interpretational+stuff+can%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+often+does%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Amislead+us.+It+also+causes+endless+insoluble+controversies.%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=oElxZbKzIb7NhbIPsemguAg&ved=0ahUKEwiyg9iNvvyCAxW-ZkEAHbE0CIcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22now+take+Carl+Jung%27s+idea+%28as+expressed+by+Gerald+R.+Baron%29+that+%27the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+%5Bmind%5D+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%27.+%28It%27s+worth+noting+here+that+Pauli+offered+criticisms+of+Jung%27s+work%2C+particularly+of+the+notion+of+synchronicity.%29%0D%0A%22In+the+light+of+Jung%27s+reference+to+%27objective+reality%27%2C+it+can+be+said+that+Pauli+rejected+the+opposition+between+*objective+reality*+itself+%28or+%27ultimate+reality%27%29%2C+and+what+we+can+can+know+about+reality+%28as+did+Niels+Bohr%29.+In+other+words%2C+knowing+%27how+Nature+is%27+amounts+to+no+more+than+a+metaphysician%27s+dream.+All+we+actually+have+is+%27what+we+can+say+about+Nature%22%27.+And%2C+at+the+quantum-mechanical+level+at+least%2C+what+we+can+say+is+what+we+can+say+with+the+mathematics%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ain+conjunction+with+experiments%2C+tests%2C+observations%2C+etc.+Consequently%2C+just+about+everything+else+is+interpretational%2C+analogical+and%2For+imagistic+in+nature.+Indeed%2C+the+analogical%2C+imagistic+and+interpretational+stuff+can%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+often+does%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Amislead+us.+It+also+causes+endless+insoluble+controversies.%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>?</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="80af"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[N]<i>ow take Carl Jung’s idea (as expressed by Gerald R. Baron) that ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&sca_esv=584594592&ei=cA5eZbvkMMixhbIPqeGO2AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4cgATsobp5MluMTDOLhQvSdWL53_mo&ved=0ahUKEwi73OL-5teCAxXIWEEAHamwAzsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgidGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIGluIHRoZSByZWFsbSBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSB3aGlsZSB0aGUgY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIG5vdOKAii3igIppdCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&sca_esv=584594592&ei=cA5eZbvkMMixhbIPqeGO2AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4cgATsobp5MluMTDOLhQvSdWL53_mo&ved=0ahUKEwi73OL-5teCAxXIWEEAHamwAzsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgidGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIGluIHRoZSByZWFsbSBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSB3aGlsZSB0aGUgY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIG5vdOKAii3igIppdCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">the unconscious is in the realm of objective reality while the conscious [mind] is not — it is subjective</a>’. (It’s worth noting here that <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&sca_esv=584771578&ei=6dVeZd7cOfaphbIPqqecqA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7j-ctY4nQH1FW9ZkNqB8P3-YRWsIwr&ved=0ahUKEwie9cOcpdmCAxX2VEEAHaoTB9UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhpQYXVsaSdzIGNyaXRpY2lzbXMgb2YgSnVuZzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgQQIRgVSNAvUABY-ipwAHgAkAEAmAFzoAGeDqoBBDIwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBRAAGIAEwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICChAAGIAEGLEDGArCAg0QLhiABBjHARjRAxgKwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQY1AIYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&sca_esv=584771578&ei=6dVeZd7cOfaphbIPqqecqA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7j-ctY4nQH1FW9ZkNqB8P3-YRWsIwr&ved=0ahUKEwie9cOcpdmCAxX2VEEAHaoTB9UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhpQYXVsaSdzIGNyaXRpY2lzbXMgb2YgSnVuZzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgQQIRgVSNAvUABY-ipwAHgAkAEAmAFzoAGeDqoBBDIwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBRAAGIAEwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICChAAGIAEGLEDGArCAg0QLhiABBjHARjRAxgKwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQY1AIYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">Pauli offered criticisms of Jung’s work</a>, particularly of the notion of synchronicity.)</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1cf2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In the light of Jung’s reference to ‘objective reality’, it can be said that Pauli rejected the opposition between *objective reality*<span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"> itself</span> (or ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-ultimate-reality-part-1" href="https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-ultimate-reality-part-1" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">ultimate reality</a>’), and what we can can <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">know</span> <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">about reality</span> (as did Niels Bohr). In other words, knowing ‘how Nature is’ amounts to no more than a metaphysician’s dream. All we actually have is ‘what we can say about Nature’. And, at the quantum-mechanical level at least, what we can say is <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">what we can say with the mathematics</span> — in conjunction with experiments, tests, observations, etc. Consequently, just about everything else is interpretational, analogical and/or imagistic in nature. Indeed, the analogical, imagistic and interpretational stuff can — and often does — mislead us. It also causes endless insoluble controversies.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b6e9"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Needless to say, Baron didn’t respond to this passage, or any passages like it. Instead, he focussed (almost) entirely on my mentions of people’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior religious beliefs and motivations</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="635a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Baron also (indirectly) refers to an essay I wrote on Philip Goff, in which the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22When+Goff+first+discussed+panpsychism+in+his+early+papers+%28they+date+back+to+2006%29%2C+there+was+very+little+%28if+any%29+science+to+be+found+within+them.+There+certainly+wasn%27t+much%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aor+even+anything%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aabout+physical+cosmology+and+scientific+cosmology.+This+was+the+case+up+until+around+2017%2C+when+Goff+started+to+refer+to+%27cosmopsychism%27.+Sure%2C+Goff+had+previously+referred+to+atoms%2C+electrons%2C+etc.+in+his+early+papers.+However%2C+he+did+so+simply+to+argue+that+such+things+might+%28or+do%3F%29+instantiate+experience+or+consciousness.%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=eUtxZYDJDfKC9u8P2ZCd4A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFZidC3TO40n4FRNkh4CenkNE7R8ej7&ved=0ahUKEwjA6Ynvv_yCAxVygf0HHVlIB_wQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22When+Goff+first+discussed+panpsychism+in+his+early+papers+%28they+date+back+to+2006%29%2C+there+was+very+little+%28if+any%29+science+to+be+found+within+them.+There+certainly+wasn%27t+much%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aor+even+anything%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aabout+physical+cosmology+and+scientific+cosmology.+This+was+the+case+up+until+around+2017%2C+when+Goff+started+to+refer+to+%27cosmopsychism%27.+Sure%2C+Goff+had+previously+referred+to+atoms%2C+electrons%2C+etc.+in+his+early+papers.+However%2C+he+did+so+simply+to+argue+that+such+things+might+%28or+do%3F%29+instantiate+experience+or+consciousness.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpYEIldoZW4gR29mZiBmaXJzdCBkaXNjdXNzZWQgcGFucHN5Y2hpc20gaW4gaGlzIGVhcmx5IHBhcGVycyAodGhleSBkYXRlIGJhY2sgdG8gMjAwNiksIHRoZXJlIHdhcyB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSAoaWYgYW55KSBzY2llbmNlIHRvIGJlIGZvdW5kIHdpdGhpbiB0aGVtLiBUaGVyZSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgd2Fzbid0IG11Y2jigIot4oCKb3IgZXZlbiBhbnl0aGluZ-KAii3igIphYm91dCBwaHlzaWNhbCBjb3Ntb2xvZ3kgYW5kIHNjaWVudGlmaWMgY29zbW9sb2d5LiBUaGlzIHdhcyB0aGUgY2FzZSB1cCB1bnRpbCBhcm91bmQgMjAxNywgd2hlbiBHb2ZmIHN0YXJ0ZWQgdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gJ2Nvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20nLiBTdXJlLCBHb2ZmIGhhZCBwcmV2aW91c2x5IHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGF0b21zLCBlbGVjdHJvbnMsIGV0Yy4gaW4gaGlzIGVhcmx5IHBhcGVycy4gSG93ZXZlciwgaGUgZGlkIHNvIHNpbXBseSB0byBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggdGhpbmdzIG1pZ2h0IChvciBkbz8pIGluc3RhbnRpYXRlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugb3IgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22When+Goff+first+discussed+panpsychism+in+his+early+papers+%28they+date+back+to+2006%29%2C+there+was+very+little+%28if+any%29+science+to+be+found+within+them.+There+certainly+wasn%27t+much%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aor+even+anything%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aabout+physical+cosmology+and+scientific+cosmology.+This+was+the+case+up+until+around+2017%2C+when+Goff+started+to+refer+to+%27cosmopsychism%27.+Sure%2C+Goff+had+previously+referred+to+atoms%2C+electrons%2C+etc.+in+his+early+papers.+However%2C+he+did+so+simply+to+argue+that+such+things+might+%28or+do%3F%29+instantiate+experience+or+consciousness.%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=eUtxZYDJDfKC9u8P2ZCd4A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFZidC3TO40n4FRNkh4CenkNE7R8ej7&ved=0ahUKEwjA6Ynvv_yCAxVygf0HHVlIB_wQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22When+Goff+first+discussed+panpsychism+in+his+early+papers+%28they+date+back+to+2006%29%2C+there+was+very+little+%28if+any%29+science+to+be+found+within+them.+There+certainly+wasn%27t+much%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aor+even+anything%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aabout+physical+cosmology+and+scientific+cosmology.+This+was+the+case+up+until+around+2017%2C+when+Goff+started+to+refer+to+%27cosmopsychism%27.+Sure%2C+Goff+had+previously+referred+to+atoms%2C+electrons%2C+etc.+in+his+early+papers.+However%2C+he+did+so+simply+to+argue+that+such+things+might+%28or+do%3F%29+instantiate+experience+or+consciousness.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpYEIldoZW4gR29mZiBmaXJzdCBkaXNjdXNzZWQgcGFucHN5Y2hpc20gaW4gaGlzIGVhcmx5IHBhcGVycyAodGhleSBkYXRlIGJhY2sgdG8gMjAwNiksIHRoZXJlIHdhcyB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSAoaWYgYW55KSBzY2llbmNlIHRvIGJlIGZvdW5kIHdpdGhpbiB0aGVtLiBUaGVyZSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgd2Fzbid0IG11Y2jigIot4oCKb3IgZXZlbiBhbnl0aGluZ-KAii3igIphYm91dCBwaHlzaWNhbCBjb3Ntb2xvZ3kgYW5kIHNjaWVudGlmaWMgY29zbW9sb2d5LiBUaGlzIHdhcyB0aGUgY2FzZSB1cCB1bnRpbCBhcm91bmQgMjAxNywgd2hlbiBHb2ZmIHN0YXJ0ZWQgdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gJ2Nvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20nLiBTdXJlLCBHb2ZmIGhhZCBwcmV2aW91c2x5IHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGF0b21zLCBlbGVjdHJvbnMsIGV0Yy4gaW4gaGlzIGVhcmx5IHBhcGVycy4gSG93ZXZlciwgaGUgZGlkIHNvIHNpbXBseSB0byBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggdGhpbmdzIG1pZ2h0IChvciBkbz8pIGluc3RhbnRpYXRlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugb3IgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a> can be found:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7868"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“When Goff first discussed panpsychism in his early papers (they date back to 2006), there was very little (if any) science to be found within them. There certainly wasn’t much — or even anything — about physical cosmology and scientific cosmology. This was the case up until around 2017, when Goff started to refer to ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Philip+Goff+-+%22cosmopsychism%22&sca_esv=569845833&ei=K3UZZbm_EoylhbIPiJGd6Ac&ved=0ahUKEwj5gPCg-9SBAxWMUkEAHYhIB30Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Philip+Goff+-+%22cosmopsychism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHVBoaWxpcCBHb2ZmIC0gImNvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20iMgUQABiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogQyBRAAGKIESPYkUPMFWMIgcAF4AZABAJgBZqAB0gmqAQQxMi4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Philip+Goff+-+%22cosmopsychism%22&sca_esv=569845833&ei=K3UZZbm_EoylhbIPiJGd6Ac&ved=0ahUKEwj5gPCg-9SBAxWMUkEAHYhIB30Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Philip+Goff+-+%22cosmopsychism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHVBoaWxpcCBHb2ZmIC0gImNvc21vcHN5Y2hpc20iMgUQABiiBDIIEAAYiQUYogQyBRAAGKIESPYkUPMFWMIgcAF4AZABAJgBZqAB0gmqAQQxMi4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">cosmopsychism</a>’. Sure, Goff had previously referred to atoms, electrons, etc. in his early papers. However, he did so simply to argue that such things might (or do?) instantiate experience or consciousness.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bce6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Then Goff moved on to include spacetime itself within his panpsychism. (Goff <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Spacetime+on+its+own+is+a+simple+and+ubiquitous+experience%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PT158&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Spacetime+on+its+own+is+a+simple+and+ubiquitous+experience%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PT158&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>: ‘Spacetime on its own is a simple and ubiquitous experience</i>[]<i>.’) And now, in 2023, Goff states that the ‘quantum vacuum’ may be conscious.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="619b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Again, there’s not much about religion or motivations here either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5f0e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> Some of the positions and arguments in Philip Goff’s book<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/1846046017" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/1846046017" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Galileo’s Error</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>are strikingly poor. However, this is only the case when Goff broadens out his discussion to refer to such things as <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">the politics of trees</em>. (See my <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/p/c0030e7f34ab" href="https://medium.com/p/c0030e7f34ab" target="_blank">‘Professor Philip Goff’s (Panpsychist) Philosophy of Trees’</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b9d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(4)</strong> Even in an article called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-trapped-by-physicalism-5a9a362ed96f#:~:text=Strawson%20held%20in%20the%20physicalist%20trap&text=And%20that%20is%20true%20of,Dennett%20are%20physicalSalists%2C%20not%20physicalists." href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/panpsychism-trapped-by-physicalism-5a9a362ed96f#:~:text=Strawson%20held%20in%20the%20physicalist%20trap&text=And%20that%20is%20true%20of,Dennett%20are%20physicalSalists%2C%20not%20physicalists." rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Panpsychism trapped by physicalism’</a>, all Baron does is quote the critics of physicalism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a70e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Baron’s argument is that Galen Strawson, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=is+galen+strawson+and+panpsychist%3F&sca_esv=588609601&ei=KVVxZZOAE7-HhbIP7tm-uAs&ved=0ahUKEwjTuNaNyfyCAxW_Q0EAHe6sD7cQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=is+galen+strawson+and+panpsychist%3F&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=is+galen+strawson+and+panpsychist%3F&sca_esv=588609601&ei=KVVxZZOAE7-HhbIP7tm-uAs&ved=0ahUKEwjTuNaNyfyCAxW_Q0EAHe6sD7cQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=is+galen+strawson+and+panpsychist%3F&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">who is a panpsychis</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">t</strong>, is also a physicalist. (Strawson does class himself as a “real physicalist”.) Yet Strawson actually argues against physicalism in the video <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDgCQ5vehE" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDgCQ5vehE" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Galen Strawson: Panpsychism vs. Physicalism?’</a>. However, because Strawson doesn’t also embrace religion, Jung, synchronicity, etc., then his critical words about physicalists simply aren’t enough for Baron. Instead, Baron believes that Strawson should also be thoroughly committed to what he calls <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gerald+baron+-+%22the+transcendent%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=IFVxZY7lLsuuhbIP0ui3-AY&ved=0ahUKEwiO9cyJyfyCAxVLV0EAHVL0DW8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=gerald+baron+-+%22the+transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIWdlcmFsZCBiYXJvbiAtICJ0aGUgdHJhbnNjZW5kZW50IjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCkjBLVCiFVj3JnACeACQAQCYAWugAakCqgEDMS4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCsICBBAhGBXiAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gerald+baron+-+%22the+transcendent%22&sca_esv=588609601&ei=IFVxZY7lLsuuhbIP0ui3-AY&ved=0ahUKEwiO9cyJyfyCAxVLV0EAHVL0DW8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=gerald+baron+-+%22the+transcendent%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIWdlcmFsZCBiYXJvbiAtICJ0aGUgdHJhbnNjZW5kZW50IjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCkjBLVCiFVj3JnACeACQAQCYAWugAakCqgEDMS4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCsICBBAhGBXiAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the transcendent”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3ccd"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">As ever, Baron doesn’t quote or even paraphrase any of Strawson’s actual arguments. (He repeatedly quotes the often-used “mystical” and/or “spiritual” passages from Arthur Eddington, David Bohm, Erwin Schrödinger, etc.) However, he does quote Strawson saying <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22He+states+at+the+outset+his+firm+commitment+to+physicalism.+He+even+admits+that+this+is+a+personal+preference%2C+something+he+%27wants%27.%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=u01xZamPArGD9u8PxL2gwAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFby7hyElMBNSsdH1St7xUYyMD0Q2ec&ved=0ahUKEwjp2MyCwvyCAxWxgf0HHcQeCJgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22He+states+at+the+outset+his+firm+commitment+to+physicalism.+He+even+admits+that+this+is+a+personal+preference%2C+something+he+%27wants%27.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoYBIkhlIHN0YXRlcyBhdCB0aGUgb3V0c2V0IGhpcyBmaXJtIGNvbW1pdG1lbnQgdG8gcGh5c2ljYWxpc20uIEhlIGV2ZW4gYWRtaXRzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyBhIHBlcnNvbmFsIHByZWZlcmVuY2UsIHNvbWV0aGluZyBoZSAnd2FudHMnLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22He+states+at+the+outset+his+firm+commitment+to+physicalism.+He+even+admits+that+this+is+a+personal+preference%2C+something+he+%27wants%27.%22&sca_esv=588609601&source=hp&ei=u01xZamPArGD9u8PxL2gwAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXFby7hyElMBNSsdH1St7xUYyMD0Q2ec&ved=0ahUKEwjp2MyCwvyCAxWxgf0HHcQeCJgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22He+states+at+the+outset+his+firm+commitment+to+physicalism.+He+even+admits+that+this+is+a+personal+preference%2C+something+he+%27wants%27.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoYBIkhlIHN0YXRlcyBhdCB0aGUgb3V0c2V0IGhpcyBmaXJtIGNvbW1pdG1lbnQgdG8gcGh5c2ljYWxpc20uIEhlIGV2ZW4gYWRtaXRzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyBhIHBlcnNvbmFsIHByZWZlcmVuY2UsIHNvbWV0aGluZyBoZSAnd2FudHMnLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e553"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Galen Strawson]<i> states at the outset his firm commitment to physicalism. He even admits that this is a personal preference, something he ‘wants’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cbad"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Isn’t this Baron talking about people’s motivations and prior beliefs?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cbad"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-44065400543598619232023-12-15T23:40:00.000-08:002023-12-15T23:40:41.202-08:00Carl Jung’s Wild Analogies: Synchronicity and Quantum Physics<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Carl Jung’s </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung%27s+mystical+theories&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=ITRoZaKwD5mwhbIPzJm9mAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhCMTsUYf7R1FSWUoifWBjXX8SC4n-P&ved=0ahUKEwjixMGrlOuCAxUZWEEAHcxMD0MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung%27s+mystical+theories&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih1DYXJsIEp1bmcncyBteXN0aWNhbCB0aGVvcmllczIFECEYoAEyCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdSK02UABY1zNwAHgAkAEAmAFroAGEE6oBBDI3LjK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICFxAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDGNQCwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBixA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BwgIIEC4YgAQY1ALCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBBAhGBXCAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung%27s+mystical+theories&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=ITRoZaKwD5mwhbIPzJm9mAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhCMTsUYf7R1FSWUoifWBjXX8SC4n-P&ved=0ahUKEwjixMGrlOuCAxUZWEEAHcxMD0MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung%27s+mystical+theories&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih1DYXJsIEp1bmcncyBteXN0aWNhbCB0aGVvcmllczIFECEYoAEyCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdSK02UABY1zNwAHgAkAEAmAFroAGEE6oBBDI3LjK4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICFxAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDGNQCwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBixA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BwgIIEC4YgAQY1ALCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBBAhGBXCAgcQIRigARgK&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">“mystical” psychological theories</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> [see </strong>note 1<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">] are often purely analogical in nature — at least when it came to the way in which he connected them to theories and ideas in quantum physics. Indeed, even in the case of the most positive accounts of Jung’s theories, everything still seems to be purely analogical. What’s more, Jung and his (positive) biographers never really denied (or played down) the analogical nature of his claims about synchronicity’s relation to theories and ideas within quantum physics.</strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="dcb9"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="45ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*4kaUi3hB_VgKwQV9ZnK_NA.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4kaUi3hB_VgKwQV9ZnK_NA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e777"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction: Analogy</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Science and Analogy in Carl Jung’s Work</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Carl Jung on Synchronicity</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Carl Jung on Acausality</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Synchronicity in a Wider Context</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) …And, Finally, Entanglement</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cdf8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So let’s start off with a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Analogy+is+a+comparison+or+correspondence+between+two+things+%28or+two+groups+of+things%29+because+of+a+third+element+that+they+are+considered+to%C2%A0share.%22&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=Z-FmZcruNK-Pxc8Pv42Y4A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWbvd1r5OxwuUUnl3i8KJIiFN6T3Yao1&ved=0ahUKEwiKvqyn0eiCAxWvR_EDHb8GBtwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Analogy+is+a+comparison+or+correspondence+between+two+things+%28or+two+groups+of+things%29+because+of+a+third+element+that+they+are+considered+to%C2%A0share.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpcBIkFuYWxvZ3kgaXMgYSBjb21wYXJpc29uIG9yIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdHdvIHRoaW5ncyAob3IgdHdvIGdyb3VwcyBvZiB0aGluZ3MpIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgYSB0aGlyZCBlbGVtZW50IHRoYXQgdGhleSBhcmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0b8Kgc2hhcmUuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Analogy+is+a+comparison+or+correspondence+between+two+things+%28or+two+groups+of+things%29+because+of+a+third+element+that+they+are+considered+to%C2%A0share.%22&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=Z-FmZcruNK-Pxc8Pv42Y4A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWbvd1r5OxwuUUnl3i8KJIiFN6T3Yao1&ved=0ahUKEwiKvqyn0eiCAxWvR_EDHb8GBtwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Analogy+is+a+comparison+or+correspondence+between+two+things+%28or+two+groups+of+things%29+because+of+a+third+element+that+they+are+considered+to%C2%A0share.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpcBIkFuYWxvZ3kgaXMgYSBjb21wYXJpc29uIG9yIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdHdvIHRoaW5ncyAob3IgdHdvIGdyb3VwcyBvZiB0aGluZ3MpIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgYSB0aGlyZCBlbGVtZW50IHRoYXQgdGhleSBhcmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0b8Kgc2hhcmUuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">simple definition</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f895"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i><strong class="markup--strong markup--pullquote-strong">“Analogy</strong> is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="62a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite the title of this essay, it can be freely acknowledged that analogy plays an important role in explanation, conceptualisation, communication, problem solving, perception, argumentation, generalisation, memory, etc.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1c86"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="626" data-image-id="1*mgmjRz_7xXxCwaJm2an_lA.png" data-width="784" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*mgmjRz_7xXxCwaJm2an_lA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="4696"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Douglas Hofstadter</a> has said that analogy is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+core+of+cognition%22&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=K-NmZcDyINCsxc8PpZCN6A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWbxOywODUBCGhMIisePf3I6G2sVi9n3&ved=0ahUKEwiAtNz-0uiCAxVQVvEDHSVIA_0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+core+of+cognition%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhcidGhlIGNvcmUgb2YgY29nbml0aW9uIjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0i6CVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGcAaABnAGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+core+of+cognition%22&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=K-NmZcDyINCsxc8PpZCN6A8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWbxOywODUBCGhMIisePf3I6G2sVi9n3&ved=0ahUKEwiAtNz-0uiCAxVQVvEDHSVIA_0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+core+of+cognition%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhcidGhlIGNvcmUgb2YgY29nbml0aW9uIjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDMgsQABiABBiKBRiGA0i6CVAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGcAaABnAGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the core of cognition”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fcce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, it can also be acknowledged that analogy can be of great help and importance when it comes to scientific theorising. (This is particularly the case in theoretical science and cosmology.) Specifically, analogies can be used in both the applied and the theoretical sciences, and they often take the form of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">simulations</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and/or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model" rel="noopener" target="_blank">models</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc57"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, analogies aren’t always (or particularly) a bad thing. Indeed, even if they were a bad thing in science and philosophy, human beings — including scientists — wouldn’t easily be able to give them up.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d877"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of Carl Jung’s work, we can even see the word “analogy” in<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>the<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Double_aspect_theory" href="https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Double_aspect_theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8266"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This </i>[<a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Double_aspect_theory" href="https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Double_aspect_theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank">double-aspect theory</a>]<i> stands in close analogy to quantum physics, where complementary properties cannot be determined jointly with accuracy.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5464"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So when it comes to Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli using — and referring to — quantum theory, perhaps we can specifically refer to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-mapping_theory" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-mapping_theory" rel="noopener" target="_blank">structure-mapping theory</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e896"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In this theory, analogy depends on the “mapping” of the elements of one thing, to another thing. What’s more, that mapping doesn’t only occur between different objects: it also occurs between the relations of these different objects.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d0b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, using the technical term “structure-mapping theory” is perhaps giving Pauli’s and Jung’s analogies too much weight and meat (as we shall see). More importantly, it’s not even always clear if their analogies were meant to be (purely or merely) analogies in the first place.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4200"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps more relevantly to the case of Jung, we’ve had many analogies and metaphors in the philosophy of mind. For example, the mind and/or brain as seen as an aviary, blank slate, factory, telephone exchange, Watt Governor, and (dare I say) a computer.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="aeb9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But herein lies a warning.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c4e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some of these philosophical analogies <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">and </em>metaphors led to long-running mistakes and confusions about the nature of mind. Indeed, many philosophers forgot that they were actually dealing with analogies and metaphors in the first place.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="2846" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Science and Analogy in Carl Jung’s Work</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="45f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="410" data-image-id="1*4vzVHBWwFv2ziG8Q1zijbg.png" data-width="821" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4vzVHBWwFv2ziG8Q1zijbg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">Thus, science has to also be taken within the wider context of Carl Jung’s very own mystical worldview? It’s not even clear what “tak[ing] science as an end in itself” means. Many of Jungians take Jung’s worldview as some kind of end in itself.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="da2d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To most science-savvy outsiders, Carl Jung’s ideas don’t seem to be in the least bit scientific.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ddcd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, there are often confusions (or conflations) on this subject which are brought about for two main reasons:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="68b5"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) Jung saw what he was doing as being (at least partly?) scientific. (</span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Did+Carl+Jung+believe+he+was+doing+science%3F&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=6uRmZaKkAdypxc8P4_2i8AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWby-gPQudsV0R7dCTjLWwpITQbB2aoo&ved=0ahUKEwiiwc_T1OiCAxXcVPEDHeO-CD4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Did+Carl+Jung+believe+he+was+doing+science%3F&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IitEaWQgQ2FybCBKdW5nIGJlbGlldmUgaGUgd2FzIGRvaW5nIHNjaWVuY2U_MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIgFBQAFiCSnAAeACQAQCYAX2gAdQaqgEENDEuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxjHARjRAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhivARjHARixAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgQQABgDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAggQABiABBiiBMICCBAhGBYYHhgdwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBU&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Did+Carl+Jung+believe+he+was+doing+science%3F&sca_esv=586199351&source=hp&ei=6uRmZaKkAdypxc8P4_2i8AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWby-gPQudsV0R7dCTjLWwpITQbB2aoo&ved=0ahUKEwiiwc_T1OiCAxXcVPEDHeO-CD4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Did+Carl+Jung+believe+he+was+doing+science%3F&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IitEaWQgQ2FybCBKdW5nIGJlbGlldmUgaGUgd2FzIGRvaW5nIHNjaWVuY2U_MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIgFBQAFiCSnAAeACQAQCYAX2gAdQaqgEENDEuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxjHARjRAxjUAsICBRAuGIAEwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhivARjHARixAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAgQQABgDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAggQABiABBiiBMICCBAhGBYYHhgdwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBU&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">“[Jung’s]</span></span> <span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">preference was to be seen as a man of science.”</span></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">)<br />(2) Jung often explicitly refers to science (specifically, in this case, to quantum mechanics).</span></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cffb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a> is always referring to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">quantum</em> physics too. And <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Intelligent Designers</a> often refers to physics, quantum physics, cosmology, and they also use lots of mathematics. You also have “quantum healers”, “quantum soccer players”, “quantum money-makers”, etc. who often refer to (artfully-selected parts of) science.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="be1a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Added to that, Jung expressed himself in (as it were) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=scientese&sca_esv=585426870&source=hp&ei=RFdjZeXmLuK90PEP-4KlsAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWNlVNJoDWKIJWOJ5SRdccVTJbxDiZG-&ved=0ahUKEwjlmPSS8eGCAxXiHjQIHXtBCYYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=scientese&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=scientese&sca_esv=585426870&source=hp&ei=RFdjZeXmLuK90PEP-4KlsAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWNlVNJoDWKIJWOJ5SRdccVTJbxDiZG-&ved=0ahUKEwjlmPSS8eGCAxXiHjQIHXtBCYYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=scientese&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">scientese</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="90b5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, let’s firstly read <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/atmanspacher/" href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/atmanspacher/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Harald Atmanspacher</a> expressing Jung’s and Wolfgang Pauli’s ideas in a (seemingly) scientific language. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dual_Aspect_Monism_and_the_Deep_Structur/Yf1kEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22offered+the+radical+and+brilliant+idea+that+the+currency+of+these+correlations+is+not+(quantitative)+statistics,+as+in+quantum+physics,+but+(qualitative)+meaning.%22&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dual_Aspect_Monism_and_the_Deep_Structur/Yf1kEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22offered+the+radical+and+brilliant+idea+that+the+currency+of+these+correlations+is+not+%28quantitative%29+statistics,+as+in+quantum+physics,+but+%28qualitative%29+meaning.%22&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thus</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8067"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Jung and Pauli]<i> offered the radical and brilliant idea that the currency of these correlations is not (quantitative) statistics, as in quantum physics, but (qualitative) meaning.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b73d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is this really a “brilliant idea”? Alternatively, is it simply a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">brilliant analogy</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f3c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, the analogical nature of this passage just seems obvious.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2ea0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Beyond_Physicalism/RuPFBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+application+of+statistical+laws+to+processes+of+atomic+dimensions+in+physics+has+a+remarkable+correspondence+in+psychology+insofar+as+it+pursues+the+foundations+of+consciousness+to+the+point+where+they+dim+out+into+the+inconceivable%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PA203&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Beyond_Physicalism/RuPFBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+application+of+statistical+laws+to+processes+of+atomic+dimensions+in+physics+has+a+remarkable+correspondence+in+psychology+insofar+as+it+pursues+the+foundations+of+consciousness+to+the+point+where+they+dim+out+into+the+inconceivable%E2%80%A6%22&pg=PA203&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the words of Jung himself</a> (as found in his<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Structure-Dynamics-Psyche-Collected-Works/dp/041506581X" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Structure-Dynamics-Psyche-Collected-Works/dp/041506581X" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche</em></a>)<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">:</em></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d3c8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The application of statistical laws to processes of atomic dimensions in physics has a remarkable correspondence in psychology insofar as it pursues the foundations of consciousness to the point where they dim out into the inconceivable </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="10f8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Jung uses the words “correspondence” in the passage above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c7c2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now that’s a problematic word because it’s vague, and it can be interpreted in many different ways.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="73aa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For a start, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anything can be taken to correspond with anything else</em> if mystics, theorists, popular authors, etc. indulge in enough mental gymnastics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="67af"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The obvious point to make here is that the “statistical laws [and] atomic dimensions in physics” aren’t said to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">one and the same thing</em> as anything in “the foundations of consciousness”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ec88"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what about Carl Jung and his own words on synchronicities?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="b6f6" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Carl Jung on Synchronicity</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b704"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="445" data-image-id="1*EyJ4MKutl0qB493ZzZRUyQ.png" data-width="1001" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*EyJ4MKutl0qB493ZzZRUyQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="7615"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Definitions of “synchronicity” include<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Jung_on_Synchronicity_and_the_Paranormal/usrGSaO7QosC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA90&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Jung_on_Synchronicity_and_the_Paranormal/usrGSaO7QosC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA90&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>which are all taken to be faithful to Jung’s own views. (The last definition is from Jung himself.) Thus:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--blockquote" name="6499"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">(1) </span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://thenewyorkmedium.com/synchronicity/" href="https://thenewyorkmedium.com/synchronicity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">“[A] hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation.”</span></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> <br />(2) </span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22an+acausal+connecting+principle.%22&sca_esv=586199351&ei=c9xmZcz6A_2khbIPsai5gAs&ved=0ahUKEwiMgKvKzOiCAxV9UkEAHTFUDrAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22an+acausal+connecting+principle.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIiJhbiBhY2F1c2FsIGNvbm5lY3RpbmcgcHJpbmNpcGxlLiIyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAUYHjIGEAAYBRgeMgYQABgFGB4yBhAAGAUYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSMcVUOsFWPINcAF4AJABAJgBaqABpAKqAQMzLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgYQABgeGA3iAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22an+acausal+connecting+principle.%22&sca_esv=586199351&ei=c9xmZcz6A_2khbIPsai5gAs&ved=0ahUKEwiMgKvKzOiCAxV9UkEAHTFUDrAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22an+acausal+connecting+principle.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIiJhbiBhY2F1c2FsIGNvbm5lY3RpbmcgcHJpbmNpcGxlLiIyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAUYHjIGEAAYBRgeMgYQABgFGB4yBhAAGAUYHjILEAAYgAQYigUYhgMyCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSMcVUOsFWPINcAF4AJABAJgBaqABpAKqAQMzLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgYQABgeGA3iAwQYASBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">“[A]n acausal connecting principle.”</span></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"> <br />(3) “</span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://artsofthought.com/2020/05/30/carl-jung-synchronicity/" href="https://artsofthought.com/2020/05/30/carl-jung-synchronicity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">acausal parallelism”</span></span></a><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em"><br />(4) </span></span><a class="markup--anchor markup--blockquote-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved.%22&sca_esv=586199351&ei=w9xmZf75FLethbIPvvWFoAo&ved=0ahUKEwi-587wzOiCAxW3VkEAHb56AaQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAicCJtZWFuaW5nZnVsIGNvaW5jaWRlbmNlIG9mIHR3byBvciBtb3JlIGV2ZW50cyB3aGVyZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgcHJvYmFiaWxpdHkgb2YgY2hhbmNlIGlzIGludm9sdmVkLiJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved.%22&sca_esv=586199351&ei=w9xmZf75FLethbIPvvWFoAo&ved=0ahUKEwi-587wzOiCAxW3VkEAHb56AaQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAicCJtZWFuaW5nZnVsIGNvaW5jaWRlbmNlIG9mIHR3byBvciBtb3JlIGV2ZW50cyB3aGVyZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgcHJvYmFiaWxpdHkgb2YgY2hhbmNlIGlzIGludm9sdmVkLiJIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><span class="markup--em markup--blockquote-em">“ [A] meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved.”</span></span></a></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="873c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Definition <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> doesn’t say what Jungian synchronicity <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em>. It simply tells us that it has a role in terms of explanation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9780"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Definition <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> is unhelpful. It only tells us that synchronicity is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausal</em>. (Events in the past, numbers, etc. are also deemed to be acausal.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5344"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> (“acausal parallelism” ) — that too is unhelpful. All sorts of things are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">parallel </em>without needing to be deemed to be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">either</em> causal <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">or</em> acausal.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="20a4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, if John Smith was born in 1632 in Wigan, and died in 1701 in Barnsley, and Wang Zhang was born in 1632 in Beijing, and also died in 1701 in Shanghai, then is that a case of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausal parallelism</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0506"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Similarly, and to slightly change an example from David Hume (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_conjunction" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_conjunction" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f304"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If every morning when a cock crows in Somerset, a man in Wilshire then has sex with his wife, then is that also a case of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausal parallelism</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6c2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved%22&sca_esv=586327572&source=hp&ei=JWhnZaW0M_mPxc8P5tGZiAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWd2Nel_UJjIhv2fUTP0EEGJ2Qd5kb5N&ved=0ahUKEwjl2q3n0emCAxX5R_EDHeZoBlEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im8ibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBjb2luY2lkZW5jZSBvZiB0d28gb3IgbW9yZSBldmVudHMgd2hlcmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IG9mIGNoYW5jZSBpcyBpbnZvbHZlZCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved%22&sca_esv=586327572&source=hp&ei=JWhnZaW0M_mPxc8P5tGZiAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWd2Nel_UJjIhv2fUTP0EEGJ2Qd5kb5N&ved=0ahUKEwjl2q3n0emCAxX5R_EDHeZoBlEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidence+of+two+or+more+events+where+something+other+than+the+probability+of+chance+is+involved%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Im8ibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBjb2luY2lkZW5jZSBvZiB0d28gb3IgbW9yZSBldmVudHMgd2hlcmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IG9mIGNoYW5jZSBpcyBpbnZvbHZlZCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Finally</a>,</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8b79"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="10f3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The word “meaningful” (kinda) gives the game away here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8d6e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, this has nothing to do with physics, consciousness, “objective reality”, acausality, etc. Yet this isn’t to deny the importance of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningfulness</em>. After all, psychologically, such “meaningful coincidences” may be very important for the individual human subjects who note them. However, what have they to do with physics, acausality, mysticism, the paranormal, etc?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="ba1e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Carl Jung on Acausality</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="ede1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="535" data-image-id="1*VbAnbECZFVAcZCw21Sg_FQ.png" data-width="475" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*VbAnbECZFVAcZCw21Sg_FQ.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">So many (mainly trivial) things are “acausal”, it’s no wonder that acausality is deemed to be “ineluctable”.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1e9f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The term “acausal” doesn’t seem to do much work either — apart from it (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">casting suspicions</em> on the primacy of causal relations, and hinting at the possibility that there is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">much else besides</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b158"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So all this hinges on what commentators mean by “acausality”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a4cf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Carl Jung’s notion of synchronicity states that there are “some unknown noncausal connections”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3e7c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This bald explanation, in itself, clearly shows why Jung fixed upon entanglement (see later). Yet what we <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">don’t</em> have in physics — not even in quantum physics! — is any talk about “meaningful connections” which are “acausal”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b47c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, there <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">is</em> some talk of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausality </em>in physics, but not of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningful connections</em>. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/" href="https://quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Acausal’</a>. There is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘retrocausality’</a> in quantum mechanics too.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ed6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, not many physicists would ever claim that there aren’t any <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningful connection</em>s. However, most of them would simply say that such connections aren’t part of physics — or, perhaps, even part of science as a whole. In addition, they may also want to know what the words “meaningful connections” actually mean.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c232"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a> puts the position for <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausality </em>(at least as it applies to mystical views) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-pauli-jung-collaboration-on-what-is-real-c019d20f7b47" href="https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/the-pauli-jung-collaboration-on-what-is-real-c019d20f7b47" target="_blank">in the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5349"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Physicalists reject non-causal events entirely and explain them as coincidences </i>[]<i>. To both Jung and Pauli this kind of reductionism could not account for the great accumulation of human experiences, especially what are considered ‘extreme experiences’ including the paranormal.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="83dc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1 </strong>on what Baron includes within the square brackets.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3eb8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This almost entirely depends on what is meant by “events”. After all, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> may be (to use a vague word) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">connected</em> to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em>, without that connection also being seen as an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">event</em> — not even an acausal one — of any kind. Thus, neither causality nor acausality need be brought up here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="16a7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To make use of an often-used statement: correlation does not imply <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">either</em> causation <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">or</em> (well) acausation. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Correlation does not imply causation’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="98ce"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So a cock crowing in a farmyard in Totnes, and then a man making love to his wife in Bath, is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some kind</em> of connection in that one follows the other. (We can even accept the possibility that it always occurs!) Thus, event <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> is followed by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em>. However, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em> don’t make up the very same event. Indeed, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">y</em> may even be<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+connected%22&sca_esv=586305682&ei=rERnZc3pFpT87_UPq-WToAQ&ved=0ahUKEwjN7_z8r-mCAxUU_rsIHavyBEQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+connected%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJENhcmwgSnVuZyAtICJtZWFuaW5nZnVsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJ4lUMkGWJgfcAF4AZABAJgBmgGgAZMJqgEDNi42uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDRAAGEcY1gQYyQMYsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiSAxiwA8ICCBAAGAgYBxgewgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQIRgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+connected%22&sca_esv=586305682&ei=rERnZc3pFpT87_UPq-WToAQ&ved=0ahUKEwjN7_z8r-mCAxUU_rsIHavyBEQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+connected%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJENhcmwgSnVuZyAtICJtZWFuaW5nZnVsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJ4lUMkGWJgfcAF4AZABAJgBmgGgAZMJqgEDNi42uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDRAAGEcY1gQYyQMYsAPCAg4QABiABBiKBRiSAxiwA8ICCBAAGAgYBxgewgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQIRgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“meaningfully connected”</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>by a person (or even collectively connected by many persons), and still not constitute the same event.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1b49"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, we should take an example from Carl Jung himself here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="cce6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity_(book)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity_%28book%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle</em></a>, Jung cited the example of a patient who dreamt about a scarab beetle, and who then found such a beetle on his desk the very next day.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3683"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“Physicalists” (whom Baron refers to) wouldn’t claim that this is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">either</em> a causal <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">or</em> an acausal connection (or event)…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5aac"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Except, that is, in the sense that the dream occurred within a physical and causal brain (which Baron may dispute), and the event of a beetle scurrying on the desk is both physical and causal. And, then, a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">connection</em> was made between the dream and the beetle on the desk. This itself can be explained in terms of a connection between various Jungian ideas about beetles in dreams, and the physical sighting of a beetle scurrying along a desk.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="77b0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, let’s go into the specific notion of “meaningful coincidence”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bb09"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I can also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+relate%22&sca_esv=586305682&ei=CENnZYykFLyL9u8PifWf8Ao&ved=0ahUKEwiMyNe0rumCAxW8hf0HHYn6B64Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+relate%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIUNhcmwgSnVuZyAtICJtZWFuaW5nZnVsbHkgcmVsYXRlIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI3yFQoQdYjx1wAXgAkAEAmAGGAaAB4wiqAQQxMC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEECEYCuIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+relate%22&sca_esv=586305682&ei=CENnZYykFLyL9u8PifWf8Ao&ved=0ahUKEwiMyNe0rumCAxW8hf0HHYn6B64Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung+-+%22meaningfully+relate%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIUNhcmwgSnVuZyAtICJtZWFuaW5nZnVsbHkgcmVsYXRlIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI3yFQoQdYjx1wAXgAkAEAmAGGAaAB4wiqAQQxMC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEECEYCuIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“meaningfully relate”</a> the death of a mouse to the Big Bang. I can also <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">meaningfully relate</em> being poor (or being rich) with being born on January the 22nd. However, these two meaningful relations don’t have anything to do with contradicting (or going against) causal connections, acausality, entanglement, physics, or even mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4531"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidences%22&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=0UJnZcvpFMG_hbIPnvC4kAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdQ4XruzNhZYVItekmgGJ1u3ouigb_G&ved=0ahUKEwiLlruarumCAxXBX0EAHR44DpIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidences%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhkibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBjb2luY2lkZW5jZXMiMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABgWGB4YDzIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSNcIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZkBoAGZAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+coincidences%22&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=0UJnZcvpFMG_hbIPnvC4kAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdQ4XruzNhZYVItekmgGJ1u3ouigb_G&ved=0ahUKEwiLlruarumCAxXBX0EAHR44DpIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+coincidences%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhkibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBjb2luY2lkZW5jZXMiMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABgWGB4YDzIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDSNcIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZkBoAGZAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“meaningful coincidences”</a> are just things which occur in my mind, your mind, and, perhaps, in more than one mind at once. However, even a “collective” connection between a dead mouse and the Big Bang doesn’t tell us much about either. Neither is the “coincidence” (or connection) mystical, paranormal or acausal.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b462"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So there’s no physical or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">acausal</em> connection between the Big Bang and the mouse’s death. However, there is a physical connection between the ideas, images and concepts of that mouse dying, and the ideas, images and concepts of the Big Bang. Thus, the coincidence isn’t between the actual mouse and the actual Big Bang: it’s between the images, ideas and concepts of the mouse, and the images, ideas and concepts of the Big Bang. Thus, there’s nothing mystical or acausal here at all.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a622"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So in terms of accepting this as a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+acausal+connection%22&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=VkRnZa7BNYaJxc8PgYeyqAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdSZjd2nk6HBnj6GsucB9BywRgRfW5N&ved=0ahUKEwiuxJrUr-mCAxWGRPEDHYGDDIUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+acausal+connection%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih8ibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBhY2F1c2FsIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24iMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKSKAQUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZoBoAGaAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22meaningful+acausal+connection%22&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=VkRnZa7BNYaJxc8PgYeyqAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdSZjd2nk6HBnj6GsucB9BywRgRfW5N&ved=0ahUKEwiuxJrUr-mCAxWGRPEDHYGDDIUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22meaningful+acausal+connection%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih8ibWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBhY2F1c2FsIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24iMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKMgcQIRigARgKSKAQUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZoBoAGaAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“meaningful acausal connection”</a>, readers would need to buy into the entire package (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jung%27s+mystical+worldview&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=JDZoZd3dIM3BhbIPkJmsqAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhENDdKhNQfGbQt0atROHatBdutnZne&ved=0ahUKEwjd_5uhluuCAxXNYEEAHZAMC3UQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Jung%27s+mystical+worldview&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhlKdW5nJ3MgbXlzdGljYWwgd29ybGR2aWV3MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFImzFQAFiFLXAAeACQAQCYAXygAcoQqgEEMjMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgATCAg4QLhiDARixAxiABBiKBcICBBAAGAPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgIFEC4YgATCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGNQCwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBU&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jung%27s+mystical+worldview&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=JDZoZd3dIM3BhbIPkJmsqAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhENDdKhNQfGbQt0atROHatBdutnZne&ved=0ahUKEwjd_5uhluuCAxXNYEEAHZAMC3UQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Jung%27s+mystical+worldview&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhlKdW5nJ3MgbXlzdGljYWwgd29ybGR2aWV3MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFImzFQAFiFLXAAeACQAQCYAXygAcoQqgEEMjMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIREC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgATCAg4QLhiDARixAxiABBiKBcICBBAAGAPCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgIFEC4YgATCAgsQLhiDARixAxiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGNQCwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBU&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">mystical worldview</a>) of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung%27s+psychology&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=ZTZoZajaBuHIhbIP4LaHyAs&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhEdavHmIjpceOf0kPFbsfnbogdfJ4O&ved=0ahUKEwjooIHAluuCAxVhZEEAHWDbAbkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung%27s+psychology&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZDYXJsIEp1bmcncyBwc3ljaG9sb2d5MgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IhAhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWaABWaoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Jung%27s+psychology&sca_esv=586549689&source=hp&ei=ZTZoZajaBuHIhbIP4LaHyAs&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWhEdavHmIjpceOf0kPFbsfnbogdfJ4O&ved=0ahUKEwjooIHAluuCAxVhZEEAHWDbAbkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=Carl+Jung%27s+psychology&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZDYXJsIEp1bmcncyBwc3ljaG9sb2d5MgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IhAhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBWaABWaoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Carl Jung’s psychology</a>. (This isn’t to ignore the fact that psychologists — even Jungians — have taken Jung in new directions.) The story about a dream about a beetle being<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> connected</em> to a beetle on a desk wouldn’t make any sense at all outside a Jungian context.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b880"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That alone makes it all very unscientific.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b51b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, in order to accept this supposedly acausal connection, one would also have to accept and endorse large parts of a single theorist’s (i.e., Jung’s) overall worldview. In other words, one would need to be a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.jungiananalysts.org.uk/find-an-analyst/" href="https://www.jungiananalysts.org.uk/find-an-analyst/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jungian</a> who<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>accepts Jung’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“analytical psychology”</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1c6e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Synchronicity in a Wider Context</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5d46"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="517" data-image-id="1*Gv3SIUZMOdqt0-2SB3nqDw.png" data-width="514" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Gv3SIUZMOdqt0-2SB3nqDw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial;">One could spot innumerable patterns and connections before each breakfast.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1cc2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet, despite all the above, some readers who’re unfamiliar with Carl Jung’s notion of synchronicity may believe that the notion is hardly controversial — as least when taken without its (extra?) mystical and acausal baggage.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ca31"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But let’s not beat about the bush here. As one <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Jung+used+the+concept+of+synchronicity+in+arguing+for+the+existence+of+the+paranormal.%22&sca_esv=47b4a6919aabd501&source=hp&ei=w4tlZZHLEOqNwbkP1cW4qAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWWZ07YZ5tYdfXoTIUvOuE7j3zEgleau&ved=0ahUKEwjRuPG-i-aCAxXqRjABHdUiDpUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Jung+used+the+concept+of+synchronicity+in+arguing+for+the+existence+of+the+paranormal.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlgiSnVuZyB1c2VkIHRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIHN5bmNocm9uaWNpdHkgaW4gYXJndWluZyBmb3IgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgcGFyYW5vcm1hbC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Jung+used+the+concept+of+synchronicity+in+arguing+for+the+existence+of+the+paranormal.%22&sca_esv=47b4a6919aabd501&source=hp&ei=w4tlZZHLEOqNwbkP1cW4qAk&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWWZ07YZ5tYdfXoTIUvOuE7j3zEgleau&ved=0ahUKEwjRuPG-i-aCAxXqRjABHdUiDpUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Jung+used+the+concept+of+synchronicity+in+arguing+for+the+existence+of+the+paranormal.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlgiSnVuZyB1c2VkIHRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIHN5bmNocm9uaWNpdHkgaW4gYXJndWluZyBmb3IgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgcGFyYW5vcm1hbC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">often-quoted statement</a> has it:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d680"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Carl]<i> Jung used the concept of synchronicity in arguing for the existence of the paranormal.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5088"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That just quoted, it can now be said the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://dbpedia.org/page/Synchronicity" href="https://dbpedia.org/page/Synchronicity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following description</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>of synchronicity is not in the least bit controversial, mystical or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">paranormal</em>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bc83"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In contemporary research, synchronicity experiences refer to one’s subjective experience that coincidences between events in one’s mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated to each other yet have some other unknown connection. Jung held that this was a healthy, even necessary, function of the human mind that can become harmful within psychosis.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="baae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a sense, we can compare this contemporary research to Daniel Dennett’s notion of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">heterophenomenology</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3a3f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In heterophenomenology, the “verbal reports” of human subjects about their own “subjective experiences” are taken seriously. However, what such subjects say (or claim) about their subjective experiences isn’t (automatically) taken to be true, or to refer to anything actual (or factual) in the world outside their minds. Similarly, “contemporary researchers” analyse and account for selected subjects’ reports of their own subjective experiences<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">. </em>More relevantly, this<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>includes<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>their own reports of what they may call “coincidences between events”, and which they also believe to have “some [acausal] unknown connection”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fd0d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, not all psychologists are heterophenomenologists. More accurately, few counsellors and psychoanalysts are heterophenomenologists. Thus, the passage above continued in <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://dbpedia.org/page/Synchronicity" href="https://dbpedia.org/page/Synchronicity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this manner</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1284"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“One study has shown that both counsellors and psychoanalysts were less likely than psychologists to agree that chance coincidence was an adequate explanation for synchronicity, while more likely than psychologists to agree that a need for <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="http://everything.explained.today/Unconscious_mind/" href="http://everything.explained.today/Unconscious_mind/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="The unconscious mind was coined by the German Romantic philosopher Friedrich Schelling and later introduced into English by ...">unconscious material</a> to be expressed could be an explanation for synchronicity experiences in the clinical setting.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f6ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In other words, some (perhaps most) Jungian psychanalysts take such verbal reports at face value. They also believe that “chance coincidence” (at least in these cases) needs to be explained in terms of “unconscious material”. However, even here, only<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> unconscious material</em> is taken to be (as Jungians put it) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=unconscious+material+is+objective+reality&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=RENnZfKwIdujhbIP87uPgAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdRVEr1AVLXDf5FTj-iI_mzR9X3Td83&ved=0ahUKEwjy4rLRrumCAxXbUUEAHfPdA1AQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=unconscious+material+is+objective+reality&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iil1bmNvbnNjaW91cyBtYXRlcmlhbCBpcyBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eTIFECEYoAFIqC5QAFiCKnAAeACQAQCYAYMBoAGaEKoBBDE0Lji4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQIRgVwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=unconscious+material+is+objective+reality&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=RENnZfKwIdujhbIP87uPgAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdRVEr1AVLXDf5FTj-iI_mzR9X3Td83&ved=0ahUKEwjy4rLRrumCAxXbUUEAHfPdA1AQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=unconscious+material+is+objective+reality&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iil1bmNvbnNjaW91cyBtYXRlcmlhbCBpcyBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eTIFECEYoAFIqC5QAFiCKnAAeACQAQCYAYMBoAGaEKoBBDE0Lji4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgQQIRgVwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“objective reality”</a>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6cb5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Objective reality</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9df4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Both Jung and Pauli believed that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Synchronicity">synchronicities</a> (sometimes?) reveal objective reality’s actual workings.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9e2a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a> be more specific about this objective reality. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jung+saw+that+the+%27inconceivable%27+and+largely+unknowable+world+of+the+unconscious+mind+was+a+part+of+objective+reality%2C+while+our+conscious+experience+deriving+in+part+from+our+unconscious+was+subjective.&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=sUxnZe3-HaLixc8PjbqfoAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdawRcXkrWqvjoZ3wRn4NvXjj1w_yvx&ved=0ahUKEwitm_3Pt-mCAxUicfEDHQ3dB1QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jung+saw+that+the+%27inconceivable%27+and+largely+unknowable+world+of+the+unconscious+mind+was+a+part+of+objective+reality%2C+while+our+conscious+experience+deriving+in+part+from+our+unconscious+was+subjective.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IswBSnVuZyBzYXcgdGhhdCB0aGUgJ2luY29uY2VpdmFibGUnIGFuZCBsYXJnZWx5IHVua25vd2FibGUgd29ybGQgb2YgdGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIG1pbmQgd2FzIGEgcGFydCBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSwgd2hpbGUgb3VyIGNvbnNjaW91cyBleHBlcmllbmNlIGRlcml2aW5nIGluIHBhcnQgZnJvbSBvdXIgdW5jb25zY2lvdXMgd2FzIHN1YmplY3RpdmUuSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jung+saw+that+the+%27inconceivable%27+and+largely+unknowable+world+of+the+unconscious+mind+was+a+part+of+objective+reality%2C+while+our+conscious+experience+deriving+in+part+from+our+unconscious+was+subjective.&sca_esv=586305682&source=hp&ei=sUxnZe3-HaLixc8PjbqfoAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZWdawRcXkrWqvjoZ3wRn4NvXjj1w_yvx&ved=0ahUKEwitm_3Pt-mCAxUicfEDHQ3dB1QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jung+saw+that+the+%27inconceivable%27+and+largely+unknowable+world+of+the+unconscious+mind+was+a+part+of+objective+reality%2C+while+our+conscious+experience+deriving+in+part+from+our+unconscious+was+subjective.&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IswBSnVuZyBzYXcgdGhhdCB0aGUgJ2luY29uY2VpdmFibGUnIGFuZCBsYXJnZWx5IHVua25vd2FibGUgd29ybGQgb2YgdGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIG1pbmQgd2FzIGEgcGFydCBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSwgd2hpbGUgb3VyIGNvbnNjaW91cyBleHBlcmllbmNlIGRlcml2aW5nIGluIHBhcnQgZnJvbSBvdXIgdW5jb25zY2lvdXMgd2FzIHN1YmplY3RpdmUuSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="288f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Jung saw that the ‘inconceivable’ and largely unknowable world of the unconscious mind was a part of objective reality, while our conscious experience deriving in part from our unconscious was subjective.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="89b5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So something that is both “inconceivable” and “unknowable” can also be “part of objective reality”. This is an extremely odd use of the term “objective reality”, and it clashes will almost all other uses. (Many philosophers and physicists have a problem with <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">all</em> references to “objective reality”, let alone this Jungian one.) At first sight, it seems like a surreal position, or even a deliberate provocation.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="081c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case and to repeat: although some of the descriptions (or defences) of synchronicity don’t (on the surface at least) seem to be problematic, it’s still the case that these descriptions (such as the ones just quoted) don’t have anything at all to do with physics, monism, acausality, or even mysticism… except, again, at the level of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">analogy</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1fda"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, what about analogy when it comes to entanglement?</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e073" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">…And, Finally, Entanglement</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="5c5f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="642" data-image-id="1*uLXKk4vnGQjANPvui_FQwA.png" data-width="457" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*uLXKk4vnGQjANPvui_FQwA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1fe7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No one need deny <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" rel="noopener" target="_blank">entanglement</a>. Indeed, not many physicists do. However, it’s tying entanglement to “mystical” beliefs, theories and interpretations that’s the issue here. </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 4</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="64ba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">When you read the purely physics-based accounts of entanglement (or nonlocality generally), it’s hard to see how <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any of it </em>can be tied to mystical matters…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5eb6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But, of course, it has been.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4890"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iask.hu/en/people/thomas-filk/" href="https://iask.hu/en/people/thomas-filk/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Filk</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>has<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>argued that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">quantum entanglement</a> (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.kriso.ee/pauli-jung-conjecture-its-impact-today-db-97818454075992e.html?lang=eng" href="https://www.kriso.ee/pauli-jung-conjecture-its-impact-today-db-97818454075992e.html?lang=eng" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“a particular type of acausal quantum correlations”</a>) was taken by Wolfgang Pauli to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“a model for the relationship between mind and matter in the framework [which] he proposed together with Jung”</a>. More simply, quantum entanglement was deemed to be a physical phenomenon which <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">“most closely represents the concept of synchronicity”</a>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c43a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here readers should note the words “model” and “represents”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="31bf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, quantum entanglement was taken to be a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">model</em> “for the relationship between mind and matter” in Jung’s theory. Put another way (as Thomas Filk himself does), quantum entanglement was deemed to “most closely” <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">represent</em> synchronicity.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="91c1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This means that quantum entanglement has nothing to do with the relationship between mind and matter — except as a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">model</em> of that relationship. Similarly, quantum entanglement has been used to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">represent</em> Jungian synchronicity. However, quantum entanglement is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">not itself</em> Jungian synchronicity. Inversely, Jungian synchronicity <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">doesn’t</em> involve quantum entanglement.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="70f0"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="42c0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="3f10"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1) </strong>The words “mystical” and “mystic” have been used throughout the essay above. So it’s worth noting that Carl Jung’s fans and followers have also classed him as a “mystic”. Yet, predictably, other fans and followers have argued that Jung <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">wasn’t</em> a mystic. [See the categorical ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjnztKLwuqCAxVJNzQIHZxWC-8QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fareomagazine.com%2F2020%2F01%2F31%2Fcarl-jung-was-not-a-mystic%2F&usg=AOvVaw05yWwEwq9IITS39pPCZ46t&opi=89978449" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjnztKLwuqCAxVJNzQIHZxWC-8QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fareomagazine.com%2F2020%2F01%2F31%2Fcarl-jung-was-not-a-mystic%2F&usg=AOvVaw05yWwEwq9IITS39pPCZ46t&opi=89978449" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Carl Jung Was Not a Mystic</a>’.] Indeed, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Sigmund Freud">Freud</a> characterised Jung as a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/unresolved-questions-in-the-freudjung-debate-on-psychosis-sexual-" href="https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/unresolved-questions-in-the-freudjung-debate-on-psychosis-sexual-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“mystic and a snob”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bde4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> The square brackets occur around these words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e5d2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[M]<i>ere chance events made possible by a very large number of possible opportunities even if it means multiple universes are needed for a sufficient number of chances.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="05ae"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I’m not sure how to make sense of that clause, or even if it is relevant to Gerald R. Baron’s overall context. Baron’s words are usually applicable to explaining “fine tuning”, and are about the values of the constants, the nature of the laws of the universe, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8334"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> Interestingly enough, in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology#Criticism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology#Criticism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Criticism’</a> section of the Wikipedia entry <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Analytic psychology’</a>, all the criticisms of Carl Jung’s views and theories come from fellow psychoanalysts, not from scientists or from philosophers. This hints at the possibility that Jungian psychology is largely ignored by nearly all scientists and philosophers.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ada8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(4)</strong> In the piece <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/789825/what-is-the-consensus-among-physicists-on-whether-quantum-mechanics-has-non-loca" href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/789825/what-is-the-consensus-among-physicists-on-whether-quantum-mechanics-has-non-loca" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘What is the consensus among physicists on whether quantum mechanics has non-locality?’</a>, some commentators argue that there is a “consensus” on nonlocality, and others argue that there isn’t a consensus on nonlocality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2dd0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(*) In future essays, I will tackle the role of analogy when it comes to Wolfgang Pauli’s and Carl Jung’s references to quantum <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">nonlocality</a> (already partially discussed), <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_%28physics%29" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">complementarity</a>, and the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">observer effect</a>.</span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-18088682589788753562023-12-09T22:25:00.000-08:002023-12-09T22:25:37.309-08:00The Weird Case of Wolfgang Pauli: Hardcore Positivist and “Mystic”<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Religious/“spiritual” commentators, New Age “scientists”, and self-described “anti-materialists” often cite the case of Wolfgang Pauli and his (what they call) </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli+as+mystic&sca_esv=584800322&source=hp&ei=BQRfZe7zKom6hbIPoL6DuAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8SFbz73zo7pi390IgX50wOOaNc2IkV&ved=0ahUKEwiuioCZ0dmCAxUJXUEAHSDfAFcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli+as+mystic&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhXb2xmZ2FuZyBQYXVsaSBhcyBteXN0aWMyBRAhGKABSKY5UABYvTRwAHgAkAEAmAGwAaABsA-qAQQyMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgIUEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli+as+mystic&sca_esv=584800322&source=hp&ei=BQRfZe7zKom6hbIPoL6DuAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8SFbz73zo7pi390IgX50wOOaNc2IkV&ved=0ahUKEwiuioCZ0dmCAxUJXUEAHSDfAFcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli+as+mystic&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhXb2xmZ2FuZyBQYXVsaSBhcyBteXN0aWMyBRAhGKABSKY5UABYvTRwAHgAkAEAmAGwAaABsA-qAQQyMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAg4QLhiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgIUEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGAo&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">“mystical”</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> views. They also note that Pauli admired — and was inspired by — the Swiss psychoanalyst</strong> <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Carl Jung. Yet Pauli was a physicist —indeed, a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great physicist</em>. So it’s not much of a surprise that virtually none of his writings on mystical matters were published in his lifetime — certainly not as academic papers or books. However, various books on Pauli’s mysticism and his relationship with Jung were published long after his death in 1958.</strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="c894"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4ae8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*xvaCv5f9_SZLB6YL5S14XA.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*xvaCv5f9_SZLB6YL5S14XA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c3da"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) False Authority: Name-Dropping Various “Great Scientists” </span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Gerald R. Baron on Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Part Two: Wolfgang Pauli’s Positivism</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d542"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To put it at its most extreme: a person may be serial killer and still be a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great scientist</em>. Similarly, a person may (i.e., in his private life) believe in pixies, white/black supremacy, or alien lizards and still be a great scientist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1bc9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, there’s a long list of great scientists and mathematicians who held very peculiar views outside their scientific and mathematical work. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.toppr.com/bytes/top-10-maddest-scientists/" href="https://www.toppr.com/bytes/top-10-maddest-scientists/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The ‘Maddest’ Scientists In History’</a>, which doesn’t even include Kurt Gödel starving himself to death.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="82a6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To state the obvious: these people <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">weren’t </em>great scientists and mathematicians for the stuff they believed, theorised about and stated outside their respective scientific and mathematical work.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f5df"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In even more simple terms. These scientists and mathematicians were flesh and blood human beings. Thus, they had particular psychologies, particular backgrounds, particular prejudices, and particular quirks.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="75e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But none of that should be a surprise.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5b9c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As for the particular psychology, particular background, particular prejudices and particular quirks of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Wolfgang Pauli</a> himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="777b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Even fans of Pauli’s “mystical” views (i.e., his views outside physics) stress his personal details.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ba8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a> (to be discussed later)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+1930+one+of+the+pioneers+of+the+rapidly+advancing+science+of+quantum+mechanics+had+a+personal+crisis.+Troubled+by+a+divorce+and+his+mother%27s+suicide%2C+he+consulted+one+of+the+leading+lights+of+the+new+science+of+psychology.%22&sca_esv=583778028&source=hp&ei=9gFaZfquH9my0PEPmamymAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoQBpb_6QpfdIAPXv7rR_hNhLlY87D_&ved=0ahUKEwj6gc_DitCCAxVZGTQIHZmUDDMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22In+1930+one+of+the+pioneers+of+the+rapidly+advancing+science+of+quantum+mechanics+had+a+personal+crisis.+Troubled+by+a+divorce+and+his+mother%27s+suicide%2C+he+consulted+one+of+the+leading+lights+of+the+new+science+of+psychology.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IuMBIkluIDE5MzAgb25lIG9mIHRoZSBwaW9uZWVycyBvZiB0aGUgcmFwaWRseSBhZHZhbmNpbmcgc2NpZW5jZSBvZiBxdWFudHVtIG1lY2hhbmljcyBoYWQgYSBwZXJzb25hbCBjcmlzaXMuIFRyb3VibGVkIGJ5IGEgZGl2b3JjZSBhbmQgaGlzIG1vdGhlcidzIHN1aWNpZGUsIGhlIGNvbnN1bHRlZCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGxlYWRpbmcgbGlnaHRzIG9mIHRoZSBuZXcgc2NpZW5jZSBvZiBwc3ljaG9sb2d5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22In+1930+one+of+the+pioneers+of+the+rapidly+advancing+science+of+quantum+mechanics+had+a+personal+crisis.+Troubled+by+a+divorce+and+his+mother%27s+suicide%2C+he+consulted+one+of+the+leading+lights+of+the+new+science+of+psychology.%22&sca_esv=583778028&source=hp&ei=9gFaZfquH9my0PEPmamymAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoQBpb_6QpfdIAPXv7rR_hNhLlY87D_&ved=0ahUKEwj6gc_DitCCAxVZGTQIHZmUDDMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22In+1930+one+of+the+pioneers+of+the+rapidly+advancing+science+of+quantum+mechanics+had+a+personal+crisis.+Troubled+by+a+divorce+and+his+mother%27s+suicide%2C+he+consulted+one+of+the+leading+lights+of+the+new+science+of+psychology.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IuMBIkluIDE5MzAgb25lIG9mIHRoZSBwaW9uZWVycyBvZiB0aGUgcmFwaWRseSBhZHZhbmNpbmcgc2NpZW5jZSBvZiBxdWFudHVtIG1lY2hhbmljcyBoYWQgYSBwZXJzb25hbCBjcmlzaXMuIFRyb3VibGVkIGJ5IGEgZGl2b3JjZSBhbmQgaGlzIG1vdGhlcidzIHN1aWNpZGUsIGhlIGNvbnN1bHRlZCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGxlYWRpbmcgbGlnaHRzIG9mIHRoZSBuZXcgc2NpZW5jZSBvZiBwc3ljaG9sb2d5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ed5b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“In 1930 </i>[]<i> one of the pioneers of the rapidly advancing science of quantum mechanics had a personal crisis. Troubled by a divorce and his mother’s suicide, he consulted one of the leading lights of the new science of psychology </i>[Carl Jung]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8f4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Elsewhere, Baron also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22in+late+1930+after+Pauli+divorced+his+cabaret-singer+wife+and+Pauli%27s+mother+committed+suicide.+His+personal+crisis+and+cry+for+help+from+one+of+the+most+famous+psychoanalysts+of+his+time+led+to+the+two+of+them+corresponding+about+the+nature+of+reality.%22&sca_esv=583778028&ei=nAFaZayNA_r50PEP7ceUkAc&ved=0ahUKEwisy72YitCCAxX6PDQIHe0jBXIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22in+late+1930+after+Pauli+divorced+his+cabaret-singer+wife+and+Pauli%27s+mother+committed+suicide.+His+personal+crisis+and+cry+for+help+from+one+of+the+most+famous+psychoanalysts+of+his+time+led+to+the+two+of+them+corresponding+about+the+nature+of+reality.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAi_wEiaW4gbGF0ZSAxOTMwIGFmdGVyIFBhdWxpIGRpdm9yY2VkIGhpcyBjYWJhcmV0LXNpbmdlciB3aWZlIGFuZCBQYXVsaSdzIG1vdGhlciBjb21taXR0ZWQgc3VpY2lkZS4gSGlzIHBlcnNvbmFsIGNyaXNpcyBhbmQgY3J5IGZvciBoZWxwIGZyb20gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IGZhbW91cyBwc3ljaG9hbmFseXN0cyBvZiBoaXMgdGltZSBsZWQgdG8gdGhlIHR3byBvZiB0aGVtIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgYWJvdXQgdGhlIG5hdHVyZSBvZiByZWFsaXR5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22in+late+1930+after+Pauli+divorced+his+cabaret-singer+wife+and+Pauli%27s+mother+committed+suicide.+His+personal+crisis+and+cry+for+help+from+one+of+the+most+famous+psychoanalysts+of+his+time+led+to+the+two+of+them+corresponding+about+the+nature+of+reality.%22&sca_esv=583778028&ei=nAFaZayNA_r50PEP7ceUkAc&ved=0ahUKEwisy72YitCCAxX6PDQIHe0jBXIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22in+late+1930+after+Pauli+divorced+his+cabaret-singer+wife+and+Pauli%27s+mother+committed+suicide.+His+personal+crisis+and+cry+for+help+from+one+of+the+most+famous+psychoanalysts+of+his+time+led+to+the+two+of+them+corresponding+about+the+nature+of+reality.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAi_wEiaW4gbGF0ZSAxOTMwIGFmdGVyIFBhdWxpIGRpdm9yY2VkIGhpcyBjYWJhcmV0LXNpbmdlciB3aWZlIGFuZCBQYXVsaSdzIG1vdGhlciBjb21taXR0ZWQgc3VpY2lkZS4gSGlzIHBlcnNvbmFsIGNyaXNpcyBhbmQgY3J5IGZvciBoZWxwIGZyb20gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IGZhbW91cyBwc3ljaG9hbmFseXN0cyBvZiBoaXMgdGltZSBsZWQgdG8gdGhlIHR3byBvZiB0aGVtIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgYWJvdXQgdGhlIG5hdHVyZSBvZiByZWFsaXR5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAAgQQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="1549"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Pauli and Jung came together in late 1930 after Pauli divorced his cabaret-singer wife and Pauli’s mother committed suicide. His personal crisis and cry for help from one of the most famous psychoanalysts of his time </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c695"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To readers firmly outside both religion and psychoanalysis, this may simply seem like a rather typical example (even a caricature) of a person embracing <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jungian+psychoanalysis&sca_esv=584800322&source=hp&ei=pARfZbKZGMOwhbIP-IqtqAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8StILR6S4_R_qrhLyH8lWSrh6jOwbW&ved=0ahUKEwiy-9Xk0dmCAxVDWEEAHXhFCxUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jungian+psychoanalysis&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZKdW5naWFuIHBzeWNob2FuYWx5c2lzMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IvAhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBeqABeqoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jungian+psychoanalysis&sca_esv=584800322&source=hp&ei=pARfZbKZGMOwhbIP-IqtqAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8StILR6S4_R_qrhLyH8lWSrh6jOwbW&ved=0ahUKEwiy-9Xk0dmCAxVDWEEAHXhFCxUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jungian+psychoanalysis&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhZKdW5naWFuIHBzeWNob2FuYWx5c2lzMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IvAhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBeqABeqoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Jungian psychology</em></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>and/or mysticism due to very negative personal circumstances.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a1d0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We can add to all that the fact that Pauli’s father had even encouraged his son to develop an interest in Jung. And, in a more personal light, Pauli loved having his dreams analysed.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="018a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it can now be argued that had Pauli lived at any other time, and in any other environment, then there would have been a very strong chance that he simply wouldn’t have been attracted to the work of Carl Jung. Philosophically (or logically) speaking, of course, had Pauli been born at any other time, and lived in any other environment, then such a person wouldn’t actually have been Wolfgang Pauli in the first place.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="47ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, now let’s place Pauli’s mysticism in its philosophical context.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="02d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Wolfgang Pauli (just like Erwin Schrödinger) was influenced by the philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Arthur Schopenhauer</a> (1788–1860). And, of course, Schopenhauer’s own views were influenced by “Eastern” religions. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Intellectual_interests_and_affinities" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Intellectual_interests_and_affinities" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7c20"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what of the broader historical context?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dca4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014#:~:text=This%20paper%20argues%20that%20a,interpretation%20of%20the%20quantum%20equations." href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014#:~:text=This%20paper%20argues%20that%20a,interpretation%20of%20the%20quantum%20equations." rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Mysticism in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy’</a>, the historian of science <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://hpm.ethz.ch/people/former-team-members/juan-luis-marin.html" href="https://hpm.ethz.ch/people/former-team-members/juan-luis-marin.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Juan Miguel Marin</a> explains the culturally contingent nature of this fixation with mysticism within a context which is wider than just Pauli himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="96ec"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3b5b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Marin stresses that up to World War Two, quantum mechanics existed in a mainly German — and Austrian (?) — context. And, in that context, there was a “mystical zeitgeist”. Yet, Marin adds, all that ended in the 1950s, when physics became (as he puts it) “Anglo-American”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f23d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[Sure, a historian or a sociologist can now say that this Anglo-Saxon “hegemony” also expresses cultural and historical contingency when it came to physics.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7d14"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Marin then tells us that this <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mystical zeitgeist</em> was a culturally short-lived phenomenon. He also tells us that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delivered-Schrodinger-Hardcover-Cambridge-University/dp/B0028L2CC8" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delivered-Schrodinger-Hardcover-Cambridge-University/dp/B0028L2CC8" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Schrödinger’s lectures of 1958</a> were virtually the end of mysticism in physics. Needless to say, this doesn’t also mean that there weren’t isolated <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22mystical+physicists%22&sca_esv=584506005&source=hp&ei=LaJdZZzcBdK5hbIP59-yiA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV2wPf3IAfkCpmt0PlkXv75SHMu9JhXN&ved=0ahUKEwjcpvLe_9aCAxXSXEEAHeevDOEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22mystical+physicists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhUibXlzdGljYWwgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUicCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFpoAFpqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22mystical+physicists%22&sca_esv=584506005&source=hp&ei=LaJdZZzcBdK5hbIP59-yiA4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV2wPf3IAfkCpmt0PlkXv75SHMu9JhXN&ved=0ahUKEwjcpvLe_9aCAxXSXEEAHeevDOEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22mystical+physicists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhUibXlzdGljYWwgcGh5c2ljaXN0cyIyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUicCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFpoAFpqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“mystical physicists”</a> still around after 1958. (When the American hippies arrived in the mid-1960s, then the fashion for mysticism and “Eastern” religions arose again.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ffa1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Wolfgang Pauli was a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great physicist</em> who also believed in mysticism (see<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html" href="https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten’</a>)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">, </strong>the ideas and theories of Carl Jung<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">, </strong>numerology (see<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227051-800-cosmic-numbers-pauli-and-jungs-love-of-numerology/#:~:text=ON%20THE%20surface%2C%20Arthur%20I,and%20psychoanalysis%20master%20Carl%20Jung." href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227051-800-cosmic-numbers-pauli-and-jungs-love-of-numerology/#:~:text=ON%20THE%20surface%2C%20Arthur%20I,and%20psychoanalysis%20master%20Carl%20Jung." rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Cosmic numbers: Pauli and Jung’s love of numerology’</a>)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">,</strong> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Synchronicity">synchronicity</a>, etc. More relevantly, Pauli used the term <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli%2C+%22lucid+mysticism%22&sca_esv=584176901&ei=cx9cZduGJrG2hbIPxdOfwA8&ved=0ahUKEwibjKj3jtSCAxUxW0EAHcXpB_gQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli%2C+%22lucid+mysticism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIVdvbGZnYW5nIFBhdWxpLCAibHVjaWQgbXlzdGljaXNtIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRImjxQ-gpY2jZwAHgAkAEAmAG5AaAB7gyqAQQxNC4zuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAEgQYgGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli%2C+%22lucid+mysticism%22&sca_esv=584176901&ei=cx9cZduGJrG2hbIPxdOfwA8&ved=0ahUKEwibjKj3jtSCAxUxW0EAHcXpB_gQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli%2C+%22lucid+mysticism%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIVdvbGZnYW5nIFBhdWxpLCAibHVjaWQgbXlzdGljaXNtIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRImjxQ-gpY2jZwAHgAkAEAmAG5AaAB7gyqAQQxNC4zuAEDyAEA-AEB4gMEGAEgQYgGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“lucid mysticism”</a> to refer to his own general stance on these matters. (That stance being the “synthesis between religion and rationality”.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e4a3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet despite all the above, it should be kept in mind here that Pauli had <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very little</em> (almost nothing) published on these mystical subjects. [See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</strong>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9d90" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">False Authority: Name-Dropping Various “Great Scientists”</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b6ef"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="484" data-image-id="1*TzyERZfFjiG22HPotp3EXQ.png" data-width="935" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*TzyERZfFjiG22HPotp3EXQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="f0fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If writers and commentators can mention a great scientist like Wolfgang Pauli (or, indeed, Erwin Schrödinger) to back up their prior philosophical and/or religious views, then other “anti-religious” commentators and writers can quote other great scientists to back up their own prior anti-religious, anti-Jungian, etc. positions too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="decc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Who knows, perhaps the fans of Pauli’s mysticism would say that this argumentative toing and froing is a good thing.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6760"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, for every Pauli, there are hundreds — or even thousands — of scientists who would have no time at all for Jung, religion, mysticism, synchronicity, idealism, etc. Indeed, some of these names also include <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great scientists</em>. [See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong> for a long list.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="399d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As it is, it’s probably wise not to rely on scientists (even the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great</em> ones) to back up (or at least attempt to clinch) any philosophical views or positions (say, for or against panpsychism, idealism, etc.). And that’s mainly because these views or positions aren’t actually <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">within</em> physics in the first place.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5753"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That said, philosophical “materialists”, atheists, etc. <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">could</em> name-drop all sorts of scientists to back up their own materialism, atheism, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4193"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps some of them do.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f8db"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="357" data-image-id="1*hiJwd_ugaSrKYmpWfZ2qwA.png" data-width="823" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*hiJwd_ugaSrKYmpWfZ2qwA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e2cb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In more detail.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="72e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Name-dropping (or name-checking) various artfully-selected scientists doesn’t do much of a job when it comes to attempting to sell a particular philosophical and/or religious (or “mystical”/“spiritual”) position. Or, at the very least, name-dropping <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">on its its own</em> doesn’t do much work.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="be13"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What’s more, doing so is often simply to indulge in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_authority" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_authority" rel="noopener" target="_blank">false authority</a> fallacy.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4491"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The philosophers <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Cohen_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Cohen_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Carl Cohen (philosopher)">Carl Cohen</a> and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Copi" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Copi" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Irving Copi">Irving Copi</a>, for example, captured the case of quoting and mentioning physicists like Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (i.e., on subjects outside physics) when <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Place_of_Emotion_in_Argument/eZ6Tmr2PaHcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22when+the+appeal+is+made+to+parties+having+no+legitimate+claim+to+authority+in+the+matter+at%C2%A0hand%22&pg=PA6&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Place_of_Emotion_in_Argument/eZ6Tmr2PaHcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22when+the+appeal+is+made+to+parties+having+no+legitimate+claim+to+authority+in+the+matter+at%C2%A0hand%22&pg=PA6&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">they said</a> that the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">false authority fallacy</em> occurs</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9a7a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="fd97"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Copi and Cohen then <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/1292024828" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/1292024828" rel="noopener" target="_blank">added</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2ab2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hen an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority’s special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb54"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, take the words of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" href="https://gerald-baron.medium.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gerald R. Baron</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>on Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="a3e0" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Gerald Baron on Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="947f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="788" data-image-id="1*bhR30jv3FNdhYNjQRD8zCw.png" data-width="939" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*bhR30jv3FNdhYNjQRD8zCw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a226"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gerald Baron <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+is+most+important+for+our+discussion+here+is+how+so+many+of+the+great+minds+of+yesterday+and+today+are+converging+in+their+thoughts+about+these+questions.%22&sca_esv=583718853&source=hp&ei=TqlZZaCPFLqb0PEPlqKX0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVm3XkqcErgdZW7MAKo-3UaDvuRHsYCg&ved=0ahUKEwig7p39tc-CAxW6DTQIHRbRBToQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22What+is+most+important+for+our+discussion+here+is+how+so+many+of+the+great+minds+of+yesterday+and+today+are+converging+in+their+thoughts+about+these+questions.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqEBIldoYXQgaXMgbW9zdCBpbXBvcnRhbnQgZm9yIG91ciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGhlcmUgaXMgaG93IHNvIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGdyZWF0IG1pbmRzIG9mIHllc3RlcmRheSBhbmQgdG9kYXkgYXJlIGNvbnZlcmdpbmcgaW4gdGhlaXIgdGhvdWdodHMgYWJvdXQgdGhlc2UgcXVlc3Rpb25zLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What+is+most+important+for+our+discussion+here+is+how+so+many+of+the+great+minds+of+yesterday+and+today+are+converging+in+their+thoughts+about+these+questions.%22&sca_esv=583718853&source=hp&ei=TqlZZaCPFLqb0PEPlqKX0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVm3XkqcErgdZW7MAKo-3UaDvuRHsYCg&ved=0ahUKEwig7p39tc-CAxW6DTQIHRbRBToQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22What+is+most+important+for+our+discussion+here+is+how+so+many+of+the+great+minds+of+yesterday+and+today+are+converging+in+their+thoughts+about+these+questions.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqEBIldoYXQgaXMgbW9zdCBpbXBvcnRhbnQgZm9yIG91ciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGhlcmUgaXMgaG93IHNvIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGdyZWF0IG1pbmRzIG9mIHllc3RlcmRheSBhbmQgdG9kYXkgYXJlIGNvbnZlcmdpbmcgaW4gdGhlaXIgdGhvdWdodHMgYWJvdXQgdGhlc2UgcXVlc3Rpb25zLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a014"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“What is most important for our discussion here is how so many of the great minds of yesterday and today are converging in their thoughts about these questions.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="dcf9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7528"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many great minds <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">converged</em> on many other “questions” too — and some of their answers were downright false. They also converged on mutually-contradictory positions and theories.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b01e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron then does the same kind of thing (i.e., which he’d just done with Wolfgang Pauli) with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Polkinghorne</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(i.e., with the addition of the “Sir” before his name).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7fdf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron tells us that Polkinghorne was “one of Britain’s greatest theoretical physicists”. Indeed, Polkinghorne was a physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22saw+a+strange+similarity+between+the+role+that+consciousness+plays+in+affecting+physical+reality%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+quantum+measurement+%27problem%27%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+the+interchange+between+the+unconscious+and+conscious+in+the%C2%A0mind%22&sca_esv=583899177&source=hp&ei=0fdaZYShC5ypptQPiOKGwAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVsF4bIwH80H4wxPxKhFvGeccd6wDHXN&ved=0ahUKEwjEzY7_9NGCAxWclIkEHQixAagQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22saw+a+strange+similarity+between+the+role+that+consciousness+plays+in+affecting+physical+reality%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+quantum+measurement+%27problem%27%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+the+interchange+between+the+unconscious+and+conscious+in+the%C2%A0mind%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItcBInNhdyBhIHN0cmFuZ2Ugc2ltaWxhcml0eSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSByb2xlIHRoYXQgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBwbGF5cyBpbiBhZmZlY3RpbmcgcGh5c2ljYWwgcmVhbGl0eeKAii3igIp0aGUgcXVhbnR1bSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCAncHJvYmxlbSfigIot4oCKYW5kIHRoZSBpbnRlcmNoYW5nZSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSB1bmNvbnNjaW91cyBhbmQgY29uc2Npb3VzIGluIHRoZcKgbWluZCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22saw+a+strange+similarity+between+the+role+that+consciousness+plays+in+affecting+physical+reality%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+quantum+measurement+%27problem%27%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+the+interchange+between+the+unconscious+and+conscious+in+the%C2%A0mind%22&sca_esv=583899177&source=hp&ei=0fdaZYShC5ypptQPiOKGwAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVsF4bIwH80H4wxPxKhFvGeccd6wDHXN&ved=0ahUKEwjEzY7_9NGCAxWclIkEHQixAagQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22saw+a+strange+similarity+between+the+role+that+consciousness+plays+in+affecting+physical+reality%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe+quantum+measurement+%27problem%27%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aand+the+interchange+between+the+unconscious+and+conscious+in+the%C2%A0mind%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItcBInNhdyBhIHN0cmFuZ2Ugc2ltaWxhcml0eSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSByb2xlIHRoYXQgY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBwbGF5cyBpbiBhZmZlY3RpbmcgcGh5c2ljYWwgcmVhbGl0eeKAii3igIp0aGUgcXVhbnR1bSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCAncHJvYmxlbSfigIot4oCKYW5kIHRoZSBpbnRlcmNoYW5nZSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSB1bmNvbnNjaW91cyBhbmQgY29uc2Npb3VzIGluIHRoZcKgbWluZCJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">who also</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e41a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“saw a strange similarity between the role that consciousness plays in affecting physical reality — the quantum measurement ‘problem’ — and the interchange between the unconscious and conscious in the mind”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="66f4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This, again, just seems like an attempt to get some well-known physicists on board the mystical or religious train. And, as already stated, for every Pauli or Polkinghorne, there are a hundred — or even a thousand — physicists (some <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">great ones</em> too) who would never state some of the things that Pauli and Polkinghorne stated.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9fb5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, the words <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22scientific+heretics%22&sca_esv=584784815&source=hp&ei=ReNeZcK7GbuyhbIPnOmnoAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7xVatBE5m9o1nJzhJgpcnfdTOCpgoS&ved=0ahUKEwiC8of7sdmCAxU7WUEAHZz0CaQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22scientific+heretics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhUic2NpZW50aWZpYyBoZXJldGljcyIyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIlwhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBTqABTqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22scientific+heretics%22&sca_esv=584784815&source=hp&ei=ReNeZcK7GbuyhbIPnOmnoAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7xVatBE5m9o1nJzhJgpcnfdTOCpgoS&ved=0ahUKEwiC8of7sdmCAxU7WUEAHZz0CaQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22scientific+heretics%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhUic2NpZW50aWZpYyBoZXJldGljcyIyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiKBRiGAzILEAAYgAQYigUYhgNIlwhQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBTqABTqoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“scientific heretics”</a> crop up a lot in these discussions. In other words, because Pauli, Polkinghorne, Schrödinger, etc. attempted to tie physics to religion (or to mysticism), and most other scientists don’t do so, then the former are often classed as “heretics” by their supporters and fans.<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>[See my<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/rupert-sheldrakes-heretical-caricatures-of-scientists-and-science-3f2a1965a848" href="https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/rupert-sheldrakes-heretical-caricatures-of-scientists-and-science-3f2a1965a848" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘</strong>Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘Heretical’ Caricatures of Scientists and Science’</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2431"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, is Sir Polkinghorne a “great physicist” anyway?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f962"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Rather, wasn’t he just an fairly important physicist working in the strict and limited context of British physics between the late 1950s to the 1970s? Indeed, in the Wiki article on Polkinghorne, almost all of it is about him being a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22leading+voice+explaining+the+relationship+between+science+and+religion%22&sca_esv=583768629&source=hp&ei=N_5ZZZ7_LMrk0PEP5IiKuAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoMRwObSbEMl7ehNq9pABbgq2Mh5ZQ3&ved=0ahUKEwje9rf6htCCAxVKMjQIHWSEAocQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22leading+voice+explaining+the+relationship+between+science+and+religion%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgibGVhZGluZyB2b2ljZSBleHBsYWluaW5nIHRoZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAgYmV0d2VlbiBzY2llbmNlIGFuZCByZWxpZ2lvbiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22leading+voice+explaining+the+relationship+between+science+and+religion%22&sca_esv=583768629&source=hp&ei=N_5ZZZ7_LMrk0PEP5IiKuAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoMRwObSbEMl7ehNq9pABbgq2Mh5ZQ3&ved=0ahUKEwje9rf6htCCAxVKMjQIHWSEAocQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22leading+voice+explaining+the+relationship+between+science+and+religion%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkgibGVhZGluZyB2b2ljZSBleHBsYWluaW5nIHRoZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAgYmV0d2VlbiBzY2llbmNlIGFuZCByZWxpZ2lvbiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b556"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, it obviously can’t be denied that Polkinghorne wrote academic papers on physics (as with every physics postgraduate who has ever lived), and that he also had some kind of institutional role within parts of British physics. However, none of this amounts to making him a<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> great physicist</em>. Again, most of the entries on — and short accounts of — Polkinghorne don’t spend <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">any time at all</em> on his purely physics-based ideas and theories. Instead, religion is mentioned in almost every paragraph.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc7a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it can also be strongly suspected that Gerald Baron would never have felt the need to mention Polkinghorne (let alone call him “one of Britain’s greatest theoretical physicists”) if he couldn’t also connect him to his own philosophical and religious views. In other words, it can be doubted that Baron would have had any interest at all in Polkinghorne <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exclusively</em> as a physicist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="93f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Baron concludes by stating <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+nothing+else%2C+the+collaboration+of+a+Nobel+laureate+physicist+and+a+leading+thinker+on+the+mind+and+human+experience+demonstrates+the+value+of+approaching+the+question+of+reality+in+a+holistic+way%2C+meaning+from+more+than+one+field+of%C2%A0study.%22&sca_esv=583899177&source=hp&ei=w_haZZ3nJeehptQP4beUkAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVsG01u6dVCc4qjyrEmGmWEyabwAJUNk&ved=0ahUKEwjd1Nvy9dGCAxXnkIkEHeEbBTIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22If+nothing+else%2C+the+collaboration+of+a+Nobel+laureate+physicist+and+a+leading+thinker+on+the+mind+and+human+experience+demonstrates+the+value+of+approaching+the+question+of+reality+in+a+holistic+way%2C+meaning+from+more+than+one+field+of%C2%A0study.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvYBIklmIG5vdGhpbmcgZWxzZSwgdGhlIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpb24gb2YgYSBOb2JlbCBsYXVyZWF0ZSBwaHlzaWNpc3QgYW5kIGEgbGVhZGluZyB0aGlua2VyIG9uIHRoZSBtaW5kIGFuZCBodW1hbiBleHBlcmllbmNlIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlcyB0aGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgYXBwcm9hY2hpbmcgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHJlYWxpdHkgaW4gYSBob2xpc3RpYyB3YXksIG1lYW5pbmcgZnJvbSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIGZpZWxkIG9mwqBzdHVkeS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22If+nothing+else%2C+the+collaboration+of+a+Nobel+laureate+physicist+and+a+leading+thinker+on+the+mind+and+human+experience+demonstrates+the+value+of+approaching+the+question+of+reality+in+a+holistic+way%2C+meaning+from+more+than+one+field+of%C2%A0study.%22&sca_esv=583899177&source=hp&ei=w_haZZ3nJeehptQP4beUkAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVsG01u6dVCc4qjyrEmGmWEyabwAJUNk&ved=0ahUKEwjd1Nvy9dGCAxXnkIkEHeEbBTIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22If+nothing+else%2C+the+collaboration+of+a+Nobel+laureate+physicist+and+a+leading+thinker+on+the+mind+and+human+experience+demonstrates+the+value+of+approaching+the+question+of+reality+in+a+holistic+way%2C+meaning+from+more+than+one+field+of%C2%A0study.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvYBIklmIG5vdGhpbmcgZWxzZSwgdGhlIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpb24gb2YgYSBOb2JlbCBsYXVyZWF0ZSBwaHlzaWNpc3QgYW5kIGEgbGVhZGluZyB0aGlua2VyIG9uIHRoZSBtaW5kIGFuZCBodW1hbiBleHBlcmllbmNlIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlcyB0aGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgYXBwcm9hY2hpbmcgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHJlYWxpdHkgaW4gYSBob2xpc3RpYyB3YXksIG1lYW5pbmcgZnJvbSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIGZpZWxkIG9mwqBzdHVkeS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2897"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“If nothing else, the collaboration of a Nobel laureate physicist </i>[Wolfgang Pauli] <i>and a leading thinker on the mind and human experience </i>[Carl Jung]<i> demonstrates the value of approaching the question of reality in a holistic way, meaning from more than one field of study.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8870"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So how deep and wide should such<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">holism</em></a> go?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2785"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Should everything under the sun be mentioned when discussing a particular subject or problem? (Even mutually-contradictory views?)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f67f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Would it be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">holistic</em> to mention urban architecture when writing about set theory? What about horticulture when writing about quantum entanglement? Or soccer when discussing genetic mutations?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2dd3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Indeed, holism can result in an obvious free-for-all<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(i.e., a kind of philosophical free improvisation)<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>in which <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anything can be connected to anything</em> if the poetic, analogical and/or religious urge to do so arises.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2ca6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, the examples above may seem extreme or even simple jokes. However, Pauli himself did <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">connect</em> particles to what he called “souls”. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli+on+particles+to+souls&sca_esv=584778317&ei=BNxeZZPlJO-ShbIPsumOqAs&ved=0ahUKEwiT99SFq9mCAxVvSUEAHbK0A7UQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli+on+particles+to+souls&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJFdvbGZnYW5nIFBhdWxpIG9uIHBhcnRpY2xlcyB0byBzb3VsczIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI5YMBULUHWM5ycAF4AZABAJgBggGgAZAMqgEEMTIuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgoQIRigARjDBBgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wolfgang+Pauli+on+particles+to+souls&sca_esv=584778317&ei=BNxeZZPlJO-ShbIPsumOqAs&ved=0ahUKEwiT99SFq9mCAxVvSUEAHbK0A7UQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli+on+particles+to+souls&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJFdvbGZnYW5nIFBhdWxpIG9uIHBhcnRpY2xlcyB0byBzb3VsczIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI5YMBULUHWM5ycAF4AZABAJgBggGgAZAMqgEEMTIuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgoQIRigARjDBBgK4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a4eb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[The technical details of Pauli’s (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">scientific-mystical</em> theories will be discussed in a future essay.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="1255" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Part Two</span></h3><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6a0c" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Wolfgang Pauli’s Positivism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="76d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="742" data-image-id="1*L2OHELue8DAYsixUPQQCVw.png" data-width="552" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*L2OHELue8DAYsixUPQQCVw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Ernst Mach</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="dba2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those commentators and writers who emphasise Wolfgang Pauli’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">mysticism</em> won’t also be too keen on stressing his (extreme) positivism (i.e., his general <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-metaphysical</em> attitude) too. Or, at the very least, they may say that Pauli was a positivist only up to a point: that point being (more or less) when he met Carl Jung.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="22f2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This general standpoint is put by the science historian <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://home.cern/news/obituary/cern/karl-von-meyenn-1937-2022" href="https://home.cern/news/obituary/cern/karl-von-meyenn-1937-2022" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Karl von Meyenn</a> when he <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Pauli+grew+up+under+the+influence+of+Ernst+Mach%2C+but%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Alike+Einstein%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ahe+turned+away+from+the+radical+positivism+of+most+of+his+contemporaries+quite%C2%A0early.%22&sca_esv=584794750&source=hp&ei=XwFfZdvzBZCD8gKIt5XYAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8Pb70x_CZE-wg9Q586npbX__-dNERz&ved=0ahUKEwibn7XVztmCAxWQgVwKHYhbBTsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Pauli+grew+up+under+the+influence+of+Ernst+Mach%2C+but%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Alike+Einstein%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ahe+turned+away+from+the+radical+positivism+of+most+of+his+contemporaries+quite%C2%A0early.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqcBIlBhdWxpIGdyZXcgdXAgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGluZmx1ZW5jZSBvZiBFcm5zdCBNYWNoLCBidXTigIot4oCKbGlrZSBFaW5zdGVpbuKAii3igIpoZSB0dXJuZWQgYXdheSBmcm9tIHRoZSByYWRpY2FsIHBvc2l0aXZpc20gb2YgbW9zdCBvZiBoaXMgY29udGVtcG9yYXJpZXMgcXVpdGXCoGVhcmx5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Pauli+grew+up+under+the+influence+of+Ernst+Mach%2C+but%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Alike+Einstein%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ahe+turned+away+from+the+radical+positivism+of+most+of+his+contemporaries+quite%C2%A0early.%22&sca_esv=584794750&source=hp&ei=XwFfZdvzBZCD8gKIt5XYAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV8Pb70x_CZE-wg9Q586npbX__-dNERz&ved=0ahUKEwibn7XVztmCAxWQgVwKHYhbBTsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Pauli+grew+up+under+the+influence+of+Ernst+Mach%2C+but%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Alike+Einstein%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ahe+turned+away+from+the+radical+positivism+of+most+of+his+contemporaries+quite%C2%A0early.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IqcBIlBhdWxpIGdyZXcgdXAgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGluZmx1ZW5jZSBvZiBFcm5zdCBNYWNoLCBidXTigIot4oCKbGlrZSBFaW5zdGVpbuKAii3igIpoZSB0dXJuZWQgYXdheSBmcm9tIHRoZSByYWRpY2FsIHBvc2l0aXZpc20gb2YgbW9zdCBvZiBoaXMgY29udGVtcG9yYXJpZXMgcXVpdGXCoGVhcmx5LiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="722e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Pauli grew up under the influence of Ernst Mach, but — like Einstein — he turned away from the radical positivism of most of his contemporaries quite early.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="f46a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Arguably, Pauli didn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">turn away</em> from positivism “quite early” at all. He did so when he was 32. And that was after much of his important work in physics had already been done. What’s more, Pauli’s well-known <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">positivist</em> quote about “how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle” was written in 1954, some 22 years after first meeting Carl Jung. (This will be discussed again in a moment.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6878"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Various articles and papers which reflect upon Pauli’s positivism basically argue that he was a positivist until (roughly) 1932 — when he was 32. In Pauli’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%E2%80%A6+It+so+happened+that+my+father%2C+then+intellectually+completely+under+Mach%27s+influence%2C+was+very+friendly+with+his+family.+Mach+had+affably+expressed+his+willingness+to+play+the+role+of+my+godfather.+He+was%2C+no+doubt%2C+a+stronger+personality+than+was+the+Catholic+priest.+The+result+seems+to+be+that%2C+in+this+way%2C+I+was+baptized+as+%27Antimetaphysical%27+instead+of+Roman+Catholic.%22&sca_esv=584784815&source=hp&ei=pONeZfutOIm6hbIPoL6DuAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7xtBoGL_kzOtc-ZlXLfIKZEhCzMi8X&ved=0ahUKEwj7j82ostmCAxUJXUEAHSDfAFcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%E2%80%A6+It+so+happened+that+my+father%2C+then+intellectually+completely+under+Mach%27s+influence%2C+was+very+friendly+with+his+family.+Mach+had+affably+expressed+his+willingness+to+play+the+role+of+my+godfather.+He+was%2C+no+doubt%2C+a+stronger+personality+than+was+the+Catholic+priest.+The+result+seems+to+be+that%2C+in+this+way%2C+I+was+baptized+as+%27Antimetaphysical%27+instead+of+Roman+Catholic.%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%E2%80%A6+It+so+happened+that+my+father%2C+then+intellectually+completely+under+Mach%27s+influence%2C+was+very+friendly+with+his+family.+Mach+had+affably+expressed+his+willingness+to+play+the+role+of+my+godfather.+He+was%2C+no+doubt%2C+a+stronger+personality+than+was+the+Catholic+priest.+The+result+seems+to+be+that%2C+in+this+way%2C+I+was+baptized+as+%27Antimetaphysical%27+instead+of+Roman+Catholic.%22&sca_esv=584784815&source=hp&ei=pONeZfutOIm6hbIPoL6DuAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7xtBoGL_kzOtc-ZlXLfIKZEhCzMi8X&ved=0ahUKEwj7j82ostmCAxUJXUEAHSDfAFcQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%E2%80%A6+It+so+happened+that+my+father%2C+then+intellectually+completely+under+Mach%27s+influence%2C+was+very+friendly+with+his+family.+Mach+had+affably+expressed+his+willingness+to+play+the+role+of+my+godfather.+He+was%2C+no+doubt%2C+a+stronger+personality+than+was+the+Catholic+priest.+The+result+seems+to+be+that%2C+in+this+way%2C+I+was+baptized+as+%27Antimetaphysical%27+instead+of+Roman+Catholic.%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5c9d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“It so happened that my father, then intellectually completely under Mach’s influence, was very friendly with his family. Mach had affably expressed his willingness to play the role of my godfather. He was, no doubt, a stronger personality than was the Catholic priest. The result seems to be that, in this way, I was baptized as ‘Antimetaphysical’ instead of Roman Catholic.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a4a5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">And, in a letter from 1953, we can even read Pauli mentioning Mach and Jung in the same breath. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%5B%5D+I+imagine+him+amiably+shaking+your+%5BJung%27s%5D+hand%2C+welcoming+your+particular+definition+of+physics+as+a+pleasing%2C+if+somewhat+belated%2C+sign+of+insight%E2%80%A6.+Finally%2C+he+expresses+his+satisfaction+that+you+have+banished+all+metaphysical+judgments+%28as+he+was+fond+of+saying%29+%27into+the+shadow+realm+of+a+primitive+animism.%27%22&sca_esv=584771578&source=hp&ei=H9ReZb23GY6bhbIPkumj6A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7iL6_G13QnV-udpvoMSGNI6KfaHFsr&ved=0ahUKEwj9wvHBo9mCAxWOTUEAHZL0CN0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%5B%5D+I+imagine+him+amiably+shaking+your+%5BJung%27s%5D+hand%2C+welcoming+your+particular+definition+of+physics+as+a+pleasing%2C+if+somewhat+belated%2C+sign+of+insight%E2%80%A6.+Finally%2C+he+expresses+his+satisfaction+that+you+have+banished+all+metaphysical+judgments+%28as+he+was+fond+of+saying%29+%27into+the+shadow+realm+of+a+primitive+animism.%27%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsICIltdIEkgaW1hZ2luZSBoaW0gYW1pYWJseSBzaGFraW5nIHlvdXIgW0p1bmcnc10gaGFuZCwgd2VsY29taW5nIHlvdXIgcGFydGljdWxhciBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHBoeXNpY3MgYXMgYSBwbGVhc2luZywgaWYgc29tZXdoYXQgYmVsYXRlZCwgc2lnbiBvZiBpbnNpZ2h04oCmLiBGaW5hbGx5LCBoZSBleHByZXNzZXMgaGlzIHNhdGlzZmFjdGlvbiB0aGF0IHlvdSBoYXZlIGJhbmlzaGVkIGFsbCBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwganVkZ21lbnRzIChhcyBoZSB3YXMgZm9uZCBvZiBzYXlpbmcpICdpbnRvIHRoZSBzaGFkb3cgcmVhbG0gb2YgYSBwcmltaXRpdmUgYW5pbWlzbS4nIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%5B%5D+I+imagine+him+amiably+shaking+your+%5BJung%27s%5D+hand%2C+welcoming+your+particular+definition+of+physics+as+a+pleasing%2C+if+somewhat+belated%2C+sign+of+insight%E2%80%A6.+Finally%2C+he+expresses+his+satisfaction+that+you+have+banished+all+metaphysical+judgments+%28as+he+was+fond+of+saying%29+%27into+the+shadow+realm+of+a+primitive+animism.%27%22&sca_esv=584771578&source=hp&ei=H9ReZb23GY6bhbIPkumj6A0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7iL6_G13QnV-udpvoMSGNI6KfaHFsr&ved=0ahUKEwj9wvHBo9mCAxWOTUEAHZL0CN0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%5B%5D+I+imagine+him+amiably+shaking+your+%5BJung%27s%5D+hand%2C+welcoming+your+particular+definition+of+physics+as+a+pleasing%2C+if+somewhat+belated%2C+sign+of+insight%E2%80%A6.+Finally%2C+he+expresses+his+satisfaction+that+you+have+banished+all+metaphysical+judgments+%28as+he+was+fond+of+saying%29+%27into+the+shadow+realm+of+a+primitive+animism.%27%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IsICIltdIEkgaW1hZ2luZSBoaW0gYW1pYWJseSBzaGFraW5nIHlvdXIgW0p1bmcnc10gaGFuZCwgd2VsY29taW5nIHlvdXIgcGFydGljdWxhciBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHBoeXNpY3MgYXMgYSBwbGVhc2luZywgaWYgc29tZXdoYXQgYmVsYXRlZCwgc2lnbiBvZiBpbnNpZ2h04oCmLiBGaW5hbGx5LCBoZSBleHByZXNzZXMgaGlzIHNhdGlzZmFjdGlvbiB0aGF0IHlvdSBoYXZlIGJhbmlzaGVkIGFsbCBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwganVkZ21lbnRzIChhcyBoZSB3YXMgZm9uZCBvZiBzYXlpbmcpICdpbnRvIHRoZSBzaGFkb3cgcmVhbG0gb2YgYSBwcmltaXRpdmUgYW5pbWlzbS4nIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="36bc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I imagine him </i>[Ernst Mach]<i> amiably shaking your </i>[Carl Jung’s]<i> hand, welcoming your particular definition of physics as a pleasing, if somewhat belated, sign of insight. </i>[]<i> Finally, he expresses his satisfaction that you have banished all metaphysical judgments (as he was fond of saying) ‘into the shadow realm of a primitive animism.’”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="add6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So most of Pauli’s important work was done in that pre-1932 period. Of course, that isn’t also to say that Pauli didn’t do substantial work after 1932. For example, there was his spin–statistics theorem of 1940, and his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry" rel="noopener" target="_blank">CPT theorem</a> of 1954. (It’s not clear to me, as a non-physicist, how much of these theorems was purely Pauli’s work.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b9ac"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s worth noting here that at the age of 21, the precocious Pauli had his well-known article on special and general relativity published. (It was published in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Encyclopedia of the Mathematical Sciences</em>, and it<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>now appears as a book called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OR4dw7ysQFQC&newbks=0&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y" href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OR4dw7ysQFQC&newbks=0&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Theory of Relativity</em></a>.) This is an article of 237 pages, and 394 footnotes. Many commentators still regard it as one of the best things ever written on both relativity theories.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="311e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="385" data-image-id="1*2k0VTzpEU16IxhNoNDlTdg.png" data-width="449" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*2k0VTzpEU16IxhNoNDlTdg.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Carl Jung at roughly the same time he first met Wolfgang Pauli.</span></strong></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a957"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But let’s cite more details on Pauli’s positivism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="345a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In an interview published in<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/in-our-time/melvyn-bragg/simon-tillotson/9781471174483" href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/in-our-time/melvyn-bragg/simon-tillotson/9781471174483" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">In Our Time: Celebrating Twenty Years of Essential Conversation</em></a>), the particle physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Close#" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Close#" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Frank Close</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>said:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="59e1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[Ernst Mach]<i> was a philosopher who influenced the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists with his well-known anti-metaphysical attitude. </i>[]<i> When Pauli was born, Mach was invited to become his godfather. The story goes, that many years later, Pauli said, jokingly, that, because Mach was such a great influence on him, he was baptised not so much Catholic but anti-metaphysical, a line of reasoning that remained for the rest of his career.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c892"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, it was no surprise that Pauli once stated (in a letter to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Max Born</a>) the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos/yZujlUD1oAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+should+no+more+rack+one%27s+brain+about+the+problem+of+whether+something+one+cannot+know+anything+about+exists+all+the+same,+than+about+the+ancient+question+of+how+many+angels+are+able+to+sit+on+the+point+of+a%C2%A0needle.%22&pg=PT142&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos/yZujlUD1oAAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+should+no+more+rack+one%27s+brain+about+the+problem+of+whether+something+one+cannot+know+anything+about+exists+all+the+same,+than+about+the+ancient+question+of+how+many+angels+are+able+to+sit+on+the+point+of+a%C2%A0needle.%22&pg=PT142&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following often-quoted words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="bfd1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[O]<i>ne should no more rack one’s brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="b322"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It must be noted here that Pauli wrote these words in 1954 — long after the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“quantum revolution”</a> of the 1920s and 1930s, and some 22 years after he first first met<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Carl Jung.</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="f45b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="404" data-image-id="1*plplbfpB6n5Pf_x1T6m3zg.png" data-width="862" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*plplbfpB6n5Pf_x1T6m3zg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="ae5a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The passage from Pauli directly above can be interpreted as him shouting <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652" href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“shut up and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>calculate!”</a> long before these well-known words were ever uttered (i.e., by N. David Mermin in 1989).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2905"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now take Carl Jung’s idea (as expressed by Gerald R. Baron) that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&sca_esv=584594592&source=hp&ei=cA5eZbvkMMixhbIPqeGO2AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4cgATsobp5MluMTDOLhQvSdWL53_mo&ved=0ahUKEwi73OL-5teCAxXIWEEAHamwAzsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgidGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIGluIHRoZSByZWFsbSBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSB3aGlsZSB0aGUgY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIG5vdOKAii3igIppdCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&sca_esv=584594592&source=hp&ei=cA5eZbvkMMixhbIPqeGO2AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4cgATsobp5MluMTDOLhQvSdWL53_mo&ved=0ahUKEwi73OL-5teCAxXIWEEAHamwAzsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22the+unconscious+is+in+the+realm+of+objective+reality+while+the+conscious+is+not%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Ait+is+subjective%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImgidGhlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIGluIHRoZSByZWFsbSBvZiBvYmplY3RpdmUgcmVhbGl0eSB3aGlsZSB0aGUgY29uc2Npb3VzIGlzIG5vdOKAii3igIppdCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0aXZlIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the unconscious is in the realm of objective reality while the conscious [mind] is not — it is subjective”</a>. (It’s worth noting here that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&sca_esv=584771578&source=hp&ei=6dVeZd7cOfaphbIPqqecqA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7j-ctY4nQH1FW9ZkNqB8P3-YRWsIwr&ved=0ahUKEwie9cOcpdmCAxX2VEEAHaoTB9UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhpQYXVsaSdzIGNyaXRpY2lzbXMgb2YgSnVuZzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgQQIRgVSNAvUABY-ipwAHgAkAEAmAFzoAGeDqoBBDIwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBRAAGIAEwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICChAAGIAEGLEDGArCAg0QLhiABBjHARjRAxgKwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQY1AIYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&sca_esv=584771578&source=hp&ei=6dVeZd7cOfaphbIPqqecqA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV7j-ctY4nQH1FW9ZkNqB8P3-YRWsIwr&ved=0ahUKEwie9cOcpdmCAxX2VEEAHaoTB9UQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Pauli%27s+criticisms+of+Jung&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhpQYXVsaSdzIGNyaXRpY2lzbXMgb2YgSnVuZzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgQQIRgVSNAvUABY-ipwAHgAkAEAmAFzoAGeDqoBBDIwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYxwEY0QPCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBRAAGIAEwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICChAAGIAEGLEDGArCAg0QLhiABBjHARjRAxgKwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQY1AIYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIKEAAYFhgeGA8YCsICBxAhGKABGArCAggQABiABBiiBA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pauli offered criticisms of Jung’s work</a>, particularly of the notion of synchronicity.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3d73"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the light of Jung’s reference to “objective reality”, it can be said that Pauli rejected the opposition between objective reality<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> itself</em> (or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-ultimate-reality-part-1" href="https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-ultimate-reality-part-1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“ultimate reality”</a>), and what we can can <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">know</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">about reality</em> (as did Niels Bohr). In other words, knowing “how Nature is” amounts to no more than a metaphysician’s dream. All we actually have is “what we can say about Nature”. And, at the quantum-mechanical level at least, what we can say is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what we can say with the mathematics</em> — in conjunction with experiments, tests, observations, etc. Consequently, just about everything else is interpretational, analogical and/or imagistic in nature. Indeed, the analogical, imagistic and interpretational stuff can — and often does — mislead us. It also causes endless insoluble controversies.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="17de"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, Jung’s theories and ideas seem to fall into all the (metaphysical) traps which Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and, indeed, Wolfgang Pauli warned others about.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e745"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of Pauli himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="39bd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Perhaps Pauli came to believe (i.e., roughly after 1932) that only physicists (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">as</em> physicists) should <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">shut up</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">and calculate,</em> or stop talking about <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">objective reality</em>. However, physicists in conjunction with, say, Carl Jung shouldn’t shut up. Alternatively, physics (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">qua</em> physics) has nothing to say about objective reality. However, physicists working with mystics, psychanalysts, theologians, religious leaders, etc. may speak freely about objective reality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b020"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, defenders of Pauli may point out that his mysticism, the ideas of Jung, etc. <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">don’t</em> contradict (or clash with) Pauli’s prior physics — or, indeed, contradict (or clash with) any (established) physics of any kind.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="62c7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, there’s no doubt at all that Pauli himself did attempt to tie his physics to his mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0435"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So tying physics and mysticism together doesn’t make them the same thing. More importantly, it doesn’t mean that we have to accept all attempts at tying these two very different things together.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c107"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So it’s complicated.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ab21"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of examples. Biographers and commentators have argued that Pauli drew on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Quantum nonlocality">nonlocality</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Complementarity (physics)">complementarity</a>, and the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Observer effect (physics)">observer effect</a> in order to (as it were)<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> back up</em> his mysticism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="27f8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More specifically, physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iask.hu/en/people/thomas-filk/" href="https://iask.hu/en/people/thomas-filk/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Filk</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>has<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>argued that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Quantum entanglement">quantum entanglement</a> (<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.kriso.ee/pauli-jung-conjecture-its-impact-today-db-97818454075992e.html?lang=eng" href="https://www.kriso.ee/pauli-jung-conjecture-its-impact-today-db-97818454075992e.html?lang=eng" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“a particular type of acausal quantum correlations”</a>) was taken by Pauli to be <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“a model for the relationship between mind and matter in the framework [which] he proposed together with Jung”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="a691"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[As already stated, the technical details of Pauli’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">scientific-mystical</em> theories will be discussed in a future essay.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="24b6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More simply, quantum entanglement was deemed to be a physical phenomenon which <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" href="http://everything.explained.today/Synchronicity/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“most closely represents the concept of synchronicity”</a>…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b0aa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, note the words “model” and “represents” in the quoted lines above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5075"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As far as can be seen, all that we have here is (often vague) talk of resemblances, analogies, metaphors, (Gerald Baron’s) “strange similarities”, etc. And all that is stock in trade when it comes to writers of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo" href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“woo”</a> and<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22New+Age+science%22&sca_esv=584594592&source=hp&ei=Lw1eZdbaDaeNhbIP77-rqAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4bP4foWMHnMaR0Lk_5QHFS3rR9ywPG&ved=0ahUKEwiWrrfl5deCAxWnRkEAHe_fCsUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22New+Age+science%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhEiTmV3IEFnZSBzY2llbmNlIjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IhQpQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22New+Age+science%22&sca_esv=584594592&source=hp&ei=Lw1eZdbaDaeNhbIP77-rqAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZV4bP4foWMHnMaR0Lk_5QHFS3rR9ywPG&ved=0ahUKEwiWrrfl5deCAxWnRkEAHe_fCsUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22New+Age+science%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhEiTmV3IEFnZSBzY2llbmNlIjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IhQpQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“New Age science”</a>. Of course, this isn’t (necessarily) to argue that Pauli’s mystical writings are at the same level as all this very amateur stuff. However, perhaps we still merely have resemblances, metaphors, analogies, <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">strange similarities</em>, etc. between the theories and details of physics, and all the popular (mystical) stuff which is firmly outside physics.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="a7a6"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="da38"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="adcb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> As with most of the other great scientists endlessly memed and mentioned (such as Einstein, Schrodinger, Planck, etc.) to back up mystical and religious views, Wolfgang Pauli didn’t actually write any academic papers on Carl Jung, mysticism, etc. In other words, for every quoted passage on Jung, etc., Pauli wrote entire papers on physics which never mention any of this mystical stuff.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4408"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This situation is summed up by John R. Gustafson in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Because+Pauli+was+in+a+difficult+individuation+process+during+his+early+years%2C+his+own+writings+on+philosophy+tend+to+be+sparse+and+often+contradictory.%22&sca_esv=583778028&source=hp&ei=-QRaZY2wLoOo8gKwo5TQAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoTCZoeRxVZ2AExxczX_JdEjeuLaVhR&ved=0ahUKEwjNkLCzjdCCAxUDlFwKHbARBSoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Because+Pauli+was+in+a+difficult+individuation+process+during+his+early+years%2C+his+own+writings+on+philosophy+tend+to+be+sparse+and+often+contradictory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpoBIkJlY2F1c2UgUGF1bGkgd2FzIGluIGEgZGlmZmljdWx0IGluZGl2aWR1YXRpb24gcHJvY2VzcyBkdXJpbmcgaGlzIGVhcmx5IHllYXJzLCBoaXMgb3duIHdyaXRpbmdzIG9uIHBoaWxvc29waHkgdGVuZCB0byBiZSBzcGFyc2UgYW5kIG9mdGVuIGNvbnRyYWRpY3RvcnkuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Because+Pauli+was+in+a+difficult+individuation+process+during+his+early+years%2C+his+own+writings+on+philosophy+tend+to+be+sparse+and+often+contradictory.%22&sca_esv=583778028&source=hp&ei=-QRaZY2wLoOo8gKwo5TQAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVoTCZoeRxVZ2AExxczX_JdEjeuLaVhR&ved=0ahUKEwjNkLCzjdCCAxUDlFwKHbARBSoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Because+Pauli+was+in+a+difficult+individuation+process+during+his+early+years%2C+his+own+writings+on+philosophy+tend+to+be+sparse+and+often+contradictory.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IpoBIkJlY2F1c2UgUGF1bGkgd2FzIGluIGEgZGlmZmljdWx0IGluZGl2aWR1YXRpb24gcHJvY2VzcyBkdXJpbmcgaGlzIGVhcmx5IHllYXJzLCBoaXMgb3duIHdyaXRpbmdzIG9uIHBoaWxvc29waHkgdGVuZCB0byBiZSBzcGFyc2UgYW5kIG9mdGVuIGNvbnRyYWRpY3RvcnkuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="80f8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Because Pauli was in a difficult individuation process during his early years, his own writings on philosophy tend to be sparse and often contradictory.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="ffde"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The science historian <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://home.cern/news/obituary/cern/karl-von-meyenn-1937-2022" href="https://home.cern/news/obituary/cern/karl-von-meyenn-1937-2022" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Karl von Meyenn</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>also makes a strong distinction between Pauli’s papers on physics, and the rest of his writings.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="08c7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For example, in the following passage (from a paper called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-85198-1_2" href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-85198-1_2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Wolfgang Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas Viewed from the Perspective of His Correspondence’</a>), Meyenn <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22While+his+publications+present+the+results+of+more+or+less+longsome+searches+for+insight%2C+his+methodical+flow+of+work+and+the+gradual+emergence+of+understanding+become+visible+only+in+his+rich+correspondence.%22&sca_esv=584176901&source=hp&ei=rh5cZciZH4KK9u8Pvvm06Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVwsvoFoplBvxI-v6wNMSmQbnLq8fjIE&ved=0ahUKEwjIqKmZjtSCAxUChf0HHb48DY0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22While+his+publications+present+the+results+of+more+or+less+longsome+searches+for+insight%2C+his+methodical+flow+of+work+and+the+gradual+emergence+of+understanding+become+visible+only+in+his+rich+correspondence.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItIBIldoaWxlIGhpcyBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbnMgcHJlc2VudCB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBvZiBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgbG9uZ3NvbWUgc2VhcmNoZXMgZm9yIGluc2lnaHQsIGhpcyBtZXRob2RpY2FsIGZsb3cgb2Ygd29yayBhbmQgdGhlIGdyYWR1YWwgZW1lcmdlbmNlIG9mIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgYmVjb21lIHZpc2libGUgb25seSBpbiBoaXMgcmljaCBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW5jZS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22While+his+publications+present+the+results+of+more+or+less+longsome+searches+for+insight%2C+his+methodical+flow+of+work+and+the+gradual+emergence+of+understanding+become+visible+only+in+his+rich+correspondence.%22&sca_esv=584176901&source=hp&ei=rh5cZciZH4KK9u8Pvvm06Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVwsvoFoplBvxI-v6wNMSmQbnLq8fjIE&ved=0ahUKEwjIqKmZjtSCAxUChf0HHb48DY0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22While+his+publications+present+the+results+of+more+or+less+longsome+searches+for+insight%2C+his+methodical+flow+of+work+and+the+gradual+emergence+of+understanding+become+visible+only+in+his+rich+correspondence.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ItIBIldoaWxlIGhpcyBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbnMgcHJlc2VudCB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBvZiBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgbG9uZ3NvbWUgc2VhcmNoZXMgZm9yIGluc2lnaHQsIGhpcyBtZXRob2RpY2FsIGZsb3cgb2Ygd29yayBhbmQgdGhlIGdyYWR1YWwgZW1lcmdlbmNlIG9mIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgYmVjb21lIHZpc2libGUgb25seSBpbiBoaXMgcmljaCBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW5jZS4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0c7c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“While his publications present the results of more or less longsome searches for insight, his methodical flow of work and the gradual emergence of understanding become visible only in his rich correspondence.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9987"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Indeed, Gerald R. Baron (mentioned earlier) admits that he’s not relying on Pauli’s books and academic papers on Jung, synchronicities, etc. And that’s simply because he didn’t write any. Instead, Baron refers to “collaboration” between Pauli and Jung which included “many letters and conversations over the years”. What’s more, most of the other writers who emphasise Pauli’s mysticism and his belief in Jung’s ideas also stress his “correspondence”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3d3c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">It’s also worth noting that the popular books <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111184.Writings_on_Physics_and_Philosophy" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/111184.Writings_on_Physics_and_Philosophy" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Writings on Physics and Philosophy</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> and </em><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atom-Archetype-Pauli-Letters-1932-1958/dp/069116147X" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atom-Archetype-Pauli-Letters-1932-1958/dp/069116147X" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Atom and Archetype</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>weren’t<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>actually written<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>as books by Wolfgang Pauli. Instead, these books are collections of Pauli’s articles and letters, which were written over many years. (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Writings on Physics and Philosophy</em> was edited and put together by Charles P. Enz and Karl V. Meyenn, and published in 1994. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atom-Archetype-Pauli-Letters-1932-1958/dp/069116147X" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atom-Archetype-Pauli-Letters-1932-1958/dp/069116147X" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Atom and Archetype</em></a><em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>was edited by<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>C. A. Meier, and published in 2014.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7e55"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2) </strong>For example,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Pierre and Marie Curie, Peter Higgs, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Enrico Fermi, Murray Gell-Mann, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Louis de Broglie,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>John Bell,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Steven Weinberg, etc. etc. etc. never had any time for any mystical and/or religious stuff. What’s more, they’ve all also been classed as “atheists” by their critics.</span></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-64316070664970626882023-12-02T22:59:00.000-08:002023-12-02T22:59:47.732-08:00Politico-Religious Anti-Materialism: Intelligent Design and Spiritual Idealism<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><b>There are many self-described “anti-materialists”, religious people and </b><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=SKxRZarhFsGrhbIP29Cn0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG6WHEhrYwNGZLuQ59uC4P5M533K1dO&ved=0ahUKEwiqpc3Yl8CCAxXBVUEAHVvoCToQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUjnCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGFAaABhQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=SKxRZarhFsGrhbIP29Cn0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG6WHEhrYwNGZLuQ59uC4P5M533K1dO&ved=0ahUKEwiqpc3Yl8CCAxXBVUEAHVvoCToQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUjnCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGFAaABhQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">spiritual idealists</a><b> who don’t just offer metaphysical arguments against what they call “materialism”: they also vocally express their hatred of it. And they hate it for primarily religious, moral and political reasons. Indeed, such people are often very open and honest about all this — as the passages quoted later will show. </b>[See<b> </b><span class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</span><b>.</b>]</span></p><section class="section section--body" name="2c9f"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="dc7c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*Vf00l8WV7hJkq7w-0aaVkw.png" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Vf00l8WV7hJkq7w-0aaVkw.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">An extract from </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">‘The Wedge Document’</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">, and Bernardo Kastrup inset. In the following essay, it’s not being argued — or even implied — that Kastrup believes in Intelligent Design. [See </strong>note 2<strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">.] Idealism is very different to the notion of Intelligent Design. However, the political, religious and moral problems which Kastrup has with materialism are often virtually identical to those which Intelligent Designers have also expressed. Indeed, both Kastrup and Intelligent Designers express their views on materialism and materialists in the same rhetorical, polemical and (in Kastrup’s case particularly) abusive ways.</strong></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9630"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, anti-materialists, spiritual idealists and religious people can — or actually will — now say that “materialists” are just as vocal, forthright and rhetorical when it comes to their own criticisms of religion. And there is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some</em> truth to that… at least when it comes to religion. However, there is very little truth to it when it comes to the criticisms of the (strictly) metaphysical positions of anti-materialism and idealism. [See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 3</strong>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7c6c"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">(i) Introduction</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(ii) Intelligent Design and Materialism</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iii) Bernardo Kastrup on Materialism and Materialists</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(iv) Philip Goff and John Eccles on Materialism</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f52b"></p><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Part Two: Leftwing (i.e., Non-Religious) Politicised Science</span></strong></div><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(v) Leonard Susskind on Right-Wing Anti-Science</span></strong></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vi) Stephen Jay Gould’s Radical Science</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><span style="font-size: large;">(vii) Elizabeth Anderson on Politically-Correct Science</span></strong></div></span></span></strong><p></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="9916" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Intelligent Design and Materialism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="23f9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="683" data-image-id="1*8OErBCav0J9Pualu7fA_5A.png" data-width="524" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*8OErBCav0J9Pualu7fA_5A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="cdf3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now take the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following passage</a> from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" href="https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The Wedge Document’</a>, as published by the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#:~:text=The%20Discovery%20Institute%20(DI)%20is,offshoot%20of%20the%20Hudson%20Institute." href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#:~:text=The%20Discovery%20Institute%20%28DI%29%20is,offshoot%20of%20the%20Hudson%20Institute." rel="noopener" target="_blank">Discovery Institute</a> in 1998:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="286e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominantly materialistic science as a giant tree, out strategy is intended to function as a ‘wedge’ that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weaker points. </i>[]<i> Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8234"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage reads like the political manifesto of some kind of “radical” Far Left or Far Right political groupuscule. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wedge" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wedge" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Red Wedge’</a> as a comparison, <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 4</strong>.] Yet some readers may think that using such quotations from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Intelligent Designers</a> is to pick out straw targets. This isn’t the case. That’s because the rhetoric and (well) honesty of IDers’ positions (such as the one above) can be found in the words of many other self-described (<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">non</em>-ID) “anti-materialists” too. (Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra are good examples of this — see later.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="904a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Father%27s+words%2C+my+studies%2C+and+my+prayers+convinced+me+that+I+should+devote+my+life+to+destroying+Darwinism%2C+just+as+many+of+my+fellow+Unificationists+had+already+devoted+their+lives+to+destroying+Marxism.+When+Father+chose+me+%28along+with+about+a+dozen+other+seminary+graduates%29+to+enter+a+PhD+program+in+1978%2C+I+welcomed+the+opportunity+to+prepare+myself+for%C2%A0battle.%22&sca_esv=581440190&source=hp&ei=SxxPZcPGDP2M9u8PhsavuAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZU8qW03z1Uh-ZuBaGvJXDEUv1mfsO2wn&ved=0ahUKEwiDmOqLpruCAxV9hv0HHQbjC6cQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Father%27s+words%2C+my+studies%2C+and+my+prayers+convinced+me+that+I+should+devote+my+life+to+destroying+Darwinism%2C+just+as+many+of+my+fellow+Unificationists+had+already+devoted+their+lives+to+destroying+Marxism.+When+Father+chose+me+%28along+with+about+a+dozen+other+seminary+graduates%29+to+enter+a+PhD+program+in+1978%2C+I+welcomed+the+opportunity+to+prepare+myself+for%C2%A0battle.%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Father%27s+words%2C+my+studies%2C+and+my+prayers+convinced+me+that+I+should+devote+my+life+to+destroying+Darwinism%2C+just+as+many+of+my+fellow+Unificationists+had+already+devoted+their+lives+to+destroying+Marxism.+When+Father+chose+me+%28along+with+about+a+dozen+other+seminary+graduates%29+to+enter+a+PhD+program+in+1978%2C+I+welcomed+the+opportunity+to+prepare+myself+for%C2%A0battle.%22&sca_esv=581440190&source=hp&ei=SxxPZcPGDP2M9u8PhsavuAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZU8qW03z1Uh-ZuBaGvJXDEUv1mfsO2wn&ved=0ahUKEwiDmOqLpruCAxV9hv0HHQbjC6cQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Father%27s+words%2C+my+studies%2C+and+my+prayers+convinced+me+that+I+should+devote+my+life+to+destroying+Darwinism%2C+just+as+many+of+my+fellow+Unificationists+had+already+devoted+their+lives+to+destroying+Marxism.+When+Father+chose+me+%28along+with+about+a+dozen+other+seminary+graduates%29+to+enter+a+PhD+program+in+1978%2C+I+welcomed+the+opportunity+to+prepare+myself+for%C2%A0battle.%22&gs_lp=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-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">another very similar example</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="20d8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Father’s </i>[Reverend Moon’s]<i> words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="eb7f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[This is a good example of what may well be called the political strategy of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">entryism</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5446"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Those are the words of the American theologian and advocate of Intelligent Design <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jonathan Wells</a> (from his <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jonathan+Wells%2C+%27Darwinism%3A+Why+I+Went+for+a+Second+PhD%27&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=fiJSZcaMNZqphbIPo4qzqAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIwjialpRHKvCMy9vaSlc3SSus5EV1X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_G2iMGCAxWaVEEAHSPFDDUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jonathan+Wells%2C+%27Darwinism%3A+Why+I+Went+for+a+Second+PhD%27&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjhKb25hdGhhbiBXZWxscywgJ0RhcndpbmlzbTogV2h5IEkgV2VudCBmb3IgYSBTZWNvbmQgUGhEJzIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEjLTVAAWI02cAB4AJABAJgBoQGgAdIKqgEDMi45uAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFECEYoAE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jonathan+Wells%2C+%27Darwinism%3A+Why+I+Went+for+a+Second+PhD%27&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=fiJSZcaMNZqphbIPo4qzqAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIwjialpRHKvCMy9vaSlc3SSus5EV1X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_G2iMGCAxWaVEEAHSPFDDUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Jonathan+Wells%2C+%27Darwinism%3A+Why+I+Went+for+a+Second+PhD%27&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjhKb25hdGhhbiBXZWxscywgJ0RhcndpbmlzbTogV2h5IEkgV2VudCBmb3IgYSBTZWNvbmQgUGhEJzIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEjLTVAAWI02cAB4AJABAJgBoQGgAdIKqgEDMi45uAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBwgIFECEYoAE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second PhD’</a>).</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a811"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="368" data-image-id="1*Lx0AfjCS6_aQ5Eev3HKIAQ.png" data-width="770" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*Lx0AfjCS6_aQ5Eev3HKIAQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c8a1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of relevant detail. Jonathan Wells joined <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Phillip E. Johnson">Phillip E. Johnson</a> (founder of Intelligent Design) at the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Discovery Institute">Discovery Institute</a>. Wells is now a fellow at the Discovery Institute’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Center for Science and Culture">Center for Science and Culture</a>. [See Wells at the center <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130314204248/http://www.discovery.org/p/41" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130314204248/http://www.discovery.org/p/41" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="c23e" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Bernardo Kastrup on Materialism and Materialists</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1700"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="482" data-image-id="1*82mQqVle_P11exmtVO8kww.png" data-width="858" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*82mQqVle_P11exmtVO8kww.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e0aa"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The two quoted passages above read like much of the stuff that the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=SKxRZarhFsGrhbIP29Cn0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG6WHEhrYwNGZLuQ59uC4P5M533K1dO&ved=0ahUKEwiqpc3Yl8CCAxXBVUEAHVvoCToQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUjnCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGFAaABhQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=spiritual+idealists&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=SKxRZarhFsGrhbIP29Cn0AM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG6WHEhrYwNGZLuQ59uC4P5M533K1dO&ved=0ahUKEwiqpc3Yl8CCAxXBVUEAHVvoCToQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=spiritual+idealists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhNzcGlyaXR1YWwgaWRlYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUjnCFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAGFAaABhQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">spiritual idealist</a> Bernardo Kastrup has written. Indeed, all you’d really need to do is delete the words “Christian and theistic” from the first passage.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6a0b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So compare the ID passages above with the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/science-as-defacement-of-reason.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/science-as-defacement-of-reason.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">following words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="49f8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“But science-as-you-know-it implicitly adopts the materialist ontology. Perhaps not all scientists do this; perhaps even only a minority does. But this minority is vocal and influential. They clearly control where the research funding goes, for projects that do not assume the materialist metaphysics collectively get much less funding than projects that do.</i> []<i> Moreover, this vocal minority also controls how science-as-you-know-it is presented in the media, in school curricula, and to the culture at large. Just think of people like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and others such specialized prodigies of rhetoric and intellectual puzzles, who cavalierly ignore rigorous logic, epistemology, and ontology.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="346b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All the words above are from the Dutch philosopher and idealist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Bernardo_Kastrup" href="https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Bernardo_Kastrup" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">Bernardo Kastrup</a>. [There are more passages from Kastrup to be found in <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 5 </strong>at the end of this essay.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ab33"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In addition, in a commentary on Kastrup’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Why Materialism is Baloney</em>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deepak Chopra</a> (the businessman and “alternative medicine advocate”) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Why_Materialism_Is_Baloney/iXd8AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+book+is+another+nail+in+the+coffin+of+the+superstition+of+materialism.+With+elegant+clarity+he+explains+that+mind,+brain+%26+cosmos+are+what+consciousness+does.%22&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Why_Materialism_Is_Baloney/iXd8AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+book+is+another+nail+in+the+coffin+of+the+superstition+of+materialism.+With+elegant+clarity+he+explains+that+mind,+brain+%26+cosmos+are+what+consciousness+does.%22&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="daf8"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Bernardo Kastrup’s book is another nail in the coffin of the superstition of materialism.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3557"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As with<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>IDers, Kastrup isn’t just concerned with getting the metaphysics of “reality” right. Kastrup is primarily concerned with what “our culture embrace[s]”, and the fact that, in his eyes at least, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Materialism-Baloney-skeptics-everything/dp/1782793623" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Materialism-Baloney-skeptics-everything/dp/1782793623" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“our culture [has] embraced [] materialism”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d790"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What did Kastrup mean by that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1cd3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup once wrote a piece called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://iai.tv/articles/materialism-as-a-political-weapon-bernardo-kastrup-auid-2574" href="https://iai.tv/articles/materialism-as-a-political-weapon-bernardo-kastrup-auid-2574" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Materialism as a political weapon’</a>. One can suppose, then, that Kastrup believes that the politics of materialism must be battled against with the politics of his own spiritual idealism.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0468"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As it is, in terms of day to day politics, materialists hardly share any political or ideological views — well, no more than any other group. Some materialists are Marxists. Others are anti-Marxists. Some are liberals. Others are on the Right. Some are Republicans and Conservatives. Others are supporters of the Labour Party and socialists.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4218"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup and other idealists, on the other hand, do seem to share much outside the actual metaphysics of idealism, and not just a commitment to religion and spirituality.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4478"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, to be fair to Kastrup, his piece ‘Materialism as a political weapon’ is what he takes to be a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">political history </em>of materialism. (Kastrup wrote: “The historical, sociopolitical, and psychological convenience of the physicalist fiction is almost impossible to overestimate.”)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f750"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In any case, Kastrup doesn’t even attempt to hide his hatred of materialism. Indeed, he uses the words “materialism” and “materialist” in almost everything he writes and broadcasts.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="611b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Basically, Kastrup is waging his own personal Manichean war against the Evil that is materialism. And, needless to say, Kastrup believes that he represents the Good. [See Kastrup’s very many titles which include the word ‘materialism’ <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=materialism" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=materialism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1739"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If we return to Intelligent Design.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7f3a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup rarely mentions Christ, but he does mention Christianity.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dc26"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, firstly, take<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>this passage from<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski" rel="noopener" target="_blank">William A. Dembski</a> (as found in his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design_(book)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design_%28book%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology</em></a>):</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f5d0"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[A]<i>ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. </i>[] [T]<i>he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="100a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As just stated, Kastrup isn’t a Christian. However, he most definitely is religious. Despite that claim, Kastrup did once <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Who+am+I+to+talk+about+religion%3F+I+am+no+theologian+or+religious+scholar.+Heck%2C+I%27m+not+even+religious.%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=GyJSZcarJZuphbIP9dCY6AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIwK1M1eiwdiPj2CJIrfQCzIb7SzMdq&ved=0ahUKEwiGpceHiMGCAxWbVEEAHXUoBh0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Who+am+I+to+talk+about+religion%3F+I+am+no+theologian+or+religious+scholar.+Heck%2C+I%27m+not+even+religious.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImkiV2hvIGFtIEkgdG8gdGFsayBhYm91dCByZWxpZ2lvbj8gSSBhbSBubyB0aGVvbG9naWFuIG9yIHJlbGlnaW91cyBzY2hvbGFyLiBIZWNrLCBJJ20gbm90IGV2ZW4gcmVsaWdpb3VzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Who+am+I+to+talk+about+religion%3F+I+am+no+theologian+or+religious+scholar.+Heck%2C+I%27m+not+even+religious.%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=GyJSZcarJZuphbIP9dCY6AE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIwK1M1eiwdiPj2CJIrfQCzIb7SzMdq&ved=0ahUKEwiGpceHiMGCAxWbVEEAHXUoBh0Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Who+am+I+to+talk+about+religion%3F+I+am+no+theologian+or+religious+scholar.+Heck%2C+I%27m+not+even+religious.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImkiV2hvIGFtIEkgdG8gdGFsayBhYm91dCByZWxpZ2lvbj8gSSBhbSBubyB0aGVvbG9naWFuIG9yIHJlbGlnaW91cyBzY2hvbGFyLiBIZWNrLCBJJ20gbm90IGV2ZW4gcmVsaWdpb3VzLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">write the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0d04"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Who am I to talk about religion? I am no theologian or religious scholar. Heck, I’m not even religious.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2893"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is an incredible statement when set within the context of both all the religious words Kastrup has uttered, and all the things he’s published on religion. However, Kastrup says different things to different audiences. In addition, it also largely depends on how Kastrup is using the word “religious” when he refers to himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="578e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Like the panpsychist Philip Goff, Kastrup finds “traditional religion” and the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Philip+Goff%2C+%22Omni-God%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=7SFSZd_SJdSAhbIP8MGUoAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIv_YEYUQ2syttFWiL3Tbm4viT6MX7f&ved=0ahUKEwif_c_xh8GCAxVUQEEAHfAgBTQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Philip+Goff%2C+%22Omni-God%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdQaGlsaXAgR29mZiwgIk9tbmktR29kIjIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBDIFEAAYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIESNMrUABYhydwAHgAkAEAmAF3oAHsCaoBBDEzLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQABiABMICBBAAGB7CAgYQABgHGB7CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgKwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Philip+Goff%2C+%22Omni-God%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=7SFSZd_SJdSAhbIP8MGUoAM&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIv_YEYUQ2syttFWiL3Tbm4viT6MX7f&ved=0ahUKEwif_c_xh8GCAxVUQEEAHfAgBTQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Philip+Goff%2C+%22Omni-God%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhdQaGlsaXAgR29mZiwgIk9tbmktR29kIjIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBDIFEAAYogQyCBAAGIkFGKIESNMrUABYhydwAHgAkAEAmAF3oAHsCaoBBDEzLjK4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHCAgUQABiABMICBBAAGB7CAgYQABgHGB7CAgoQABgIGAcYHhgKwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQABiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“Omni-God”</a> (or<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+don%27t+believe+in+the+Omni-God+%28the+all-knowing%2C+all-powerful%2C+and+perfectly+good%2C+creator+that+Christians%2C+Muslims+and+Jews+believe+in%29+because+I+don%27t+think+a+perfectly+good+being+who+could+do+anything+would+create+a+universe+with+so+much+suffering.%22&sca_esv=568071978&source=hp&ei=7eYQZY_ONJOAxc8P--OJWA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZRD0_WLjYoMNC3n5SRvd-JZU83g8fH_U&ved=0ahUKEwjP-Mu90sSBAxUTQPEDHftxAgsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+don%27t+believe+in+the+Omni-God+%28the+all-knowing%2C+all-powerful%2C+and+perfectly+good%2C+creator+that+Christians%2C+Muslims+and+Jews+believe+in%29+because+I+don%27t+think+a+perfectly+good+being+who+could+do+anything+would+create+a+universe+with+so+much+suffering.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iv4BIkkgZG9uJ3QgYmVsaWV2ZSBpbiB0aGUgT21uaS1Hb2QgKHRoZSBhbGwta25vd2luZywgYWxsLXBvd2VyZnVsLCBhbmQgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGdvb2QsIGNyZWF0b3IgdGhhdCBDaHJpc3RpYW5zLCBNdXNsaW1zIGFuZCBKZXdzIGJlbGlldmUgaW4pIGJlY2F1c2UgSSBkb24ndCB0aGluayBhIHBlcmZlY3RseSBnb29kIGJlaW5nIHdobyBjb3VsZCBkbyBhbnl0aGluZyB3b3VsZCBjcmVhdGUgYSB1bml2ZXJzZSB3aXRoIHNvIG11Y2ggc3VmZmVyaW5nLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+don%27t+believe+in+the+Omni-God+%28the+all-knowing%2C+all-powerful%2C+and+perfectly+good%2C+creator+that+Christians%2C+Muslims+and+Jews+believe+in%29+because+I+don%27t+think+a+perfectly+good+being+who+could+do+anything+would+create+a+universe+with+so+much+suffering.%22&sca_esv=568071978&source=hp&ei=7eYQZY_ONJOAxc8P--OJWA&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZRD0_WLjYoMNC3n5SRvd-JZU83g8fH_U&ved=0ahUKEwjP-Mu90sSBAxUTQPEDHftxAgsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+don%27t+believe+in+the+Omni-God+%28the+all-knowing%2C+all-powerful%2C+and+perfectly+good%2C+creator+that+Christians%2C+Muslims+and+Jews+believe+in%29+because+I+don%27t+think+a+perfectly+good+being+who+could+do+anything+would+create+a+universe+with+so+much+suffering.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iv4BIkkgZG9uJ3QgYmVsaWV2ZSBpbiB0aGUgT21uaS1Hb2QgKHRoZSBhbGwta25vd2luZywgYWxsLXBvd2VyZnVsLCBhbmQgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGdvb2QsIGNyZWF0b3IgdGhhdCBDaHJpc3RpYW5zLCBNdXNsaW1zIGFuZCBKZXdzIGJlbGlldmUgaW4pIGJlY2F1c2UgSSBkb24ndCB0aGluayBhIHBlcmZlY3RseSBnb29kIGJlaW5nIHdobyBjb3VsZCBkbyBhbnl0aGluZyB3b3VsZCBjcmVhdGUgYSB1bml2ZXJzZSB3aXRoIHNvIG11Y2ggc3VmZmVyaW5nLiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“perfectly good, creator that Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in”</a>) to be too politically and morally incorrect. In Kastrup’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2013/02/zen-buddhism-and-christianity.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2013/02/zen-buddhism-and-christianity.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="5a5d"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I could go on to explore the implications of everything I said above, and to relate it to the appalling state of religion in today’s society.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0a1d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, in basic terms, Kastrup (like Goff) generally believes that such a “Abrahamic God” is not in tune with the moral and political (“progressive”) vibes of the 21st century.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4ac8"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup also defended what he called “natural theology” (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Natural theology’</a>) in an article on the American biologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jerry A. Coyne</a>. He <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/09/jerry-coynes-reply.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/09/jerry-coynes-reply.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0ccb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><i>“</i>[T]<i>here is a place </i></span><i>for natural theology. </i>[] [I]<i>f one looks past the pedestrian literal appearances of different religions, one finds significant, quite fundamental, and even altogether amazing commonalities, as many theologians know.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="251f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Kastrup says that he’s not religious in one context, and virtually admits that he is in others. Again, it also depends on how he uses the word “religious” in different contexts. More relevantly, many of his followers most certainly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">do</em> believe that Kastrup is religious. Indeed, many of them even believe that Kastrup is a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+is+a+%22spiritual+leader%22&sca_esv=582133107&ei=wtpSZd77BaC1hbIPrJ-rkA8&ved=0ahUKEwje5PCTuMKCAxWgWkEAHazPCvIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+is+a+%22spiritual+leader%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKEJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgaXMgYSAic3Bpcml0dWFsIGxlYWRlciIyBRAhGKABSJI6ULQNWK0lcAJ4AJABAJgBiAGgAcAHqgEDNy4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYigUYhgMYsAPCAgUQABiiBOIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+is+a+%22spiritual+leader%22&sca_esv=582133107&ei=wtpSZd77BaC1hbIPrJ-rkA8&ved=0ahUKEwje5PCTuMKCAxWgWkEAHazPCvIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+is+a+%22spiritual+leader%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKEJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgaXMgYSAic3Bpcml0dWFsIGxlYWRlciIyBRAhGKABSJI6ULQNWK0lcAJ4AJABAJgBiAGgAcAHqgEDNy4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgILEAAYigUYhgMYsAPCAgUQABiiBOIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“spiritual leader”</a>!</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7528"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So take the following words from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://kripal.rice.edu/" href="http://kripal.rice.edu/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Prof. Jeffrey J. Kripal</a> (as found in his essay <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/04/reading-inside-gods-brain.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/04/reading-inside-gods-brain.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Reading Inside God’s Brain’</a>):</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="d3b2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>f Bernardo Kastrup and the idealist mystical literatures of the world are pointing us in the right direction — and I think they are — the materialist hypothesis is the exact opposite of the truth. It is fantastically wrong.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="506a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As an idealist, Kastrup has much to say about consciousness. Thus, it’s no surprise that consciousness is very heavily tied to religion. <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/04/" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/04/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">So here’s<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Jeffrey J. Kripal again</a> on Kastrup’s “philosophy of consciousness”:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ba9f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">“</em><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">[A]</span><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">ny future, truly adequate philosophy of mind or science of consciousness will have to go through the study of religion, and in particular the comparative study of mystical literature</em>.”</span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="366b"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Let’s get back to Kastrup himself.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="b30f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Few things are so closely connected to religion than a belief in the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife" rel="noopener" target="_blank">afterlife</a>. And, guess what, Kastrup believes in the afterlife.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bd9e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a YouTube video called<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQEEHH11jRU" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQEEHH11jRU" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> ‘When We Die and The Meaning of Life’</a>, Kastrup offers his followers the following<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(as one of them puts it) “very reassuring” words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8dc4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Under analytical idealism, your core subjectivity remains as you as you go through the process of death, and even after. Because your core subjectivity is the core subjectivity of nature. It’s what exists. Where is it going to go? Life and death happen to it — within it. Life and death are events in core subjectivity, not at the beginning and end of core subjectivity.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1bda"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">An idealist like Kastrup may argue that a belief in the afterlife need not necessarily be tied to religion at all. In other words, a belief in the afterlife may simply be a result of Kastrup’s idealism and his views on consciousness. Yet, of course, in 99 cases out of a 100 (both today and historically), the afterlife has most certainly been tied to religion. Indeed, Kastrup himself ties the afterlife to religion. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+religion+and+the+afterlife&sca_esv=582133107&ei=IdtSZaquHeWmhbIP24SG8AY&ved=0ahUKEwjqwq7BuMKCAxVlU0EAHVuCAW4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+religion+and+the+afterlife&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLkJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgb24gcmVsaWdpb24gYW5kIHRoZSBhZnRlcmxpZmUyBRAAGKIESKEsUPAFWKslcAB4AJABAJgBWKABoguqAQIxObgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGKIEGLADwgILEAAYiQUYogQYsAPCAgoQIRigARjDBBgKwgIIECEYoAEYwwTiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+religion+and+the+afterlife&sca_esv=582133107&ei=IdtSZaquHeWmhbIP24SG8AY&ved=0ahUKEwjqwq7BuMKCAxVlU0EAHVuCAW4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+on+religion+and+the+afterlife&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLkJlcm5hcmRvIEthc3RydXAgb24gcmVsaWdpb24gYW5kIHRoZSBhZnRlcmxpZmUyBRAAGKIESKEsUPAFWKslcAB4AJABAJgBWKABoguqAQIxObgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGKIEGLADwgILEAAYiQUYogQYsAPCAgoQIRigARjDBBgKwgIIECEYoAEYwwTiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e648"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now let’s move away from the spiritual idealist Bernardo Kastrup, and move on to the spiritual panpsychist Philip Goff.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0dd8" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Philip Goff and John Eccles on Materialism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="84dd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="504" data-image-id="1*xgTfHIEfFN3x_rbCF2tAQg.png" data-width="670" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*xgTfHIEfFN3x_rbCF2tAQg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9b18"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The English philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>once said that “materialism is a pretty dismal worldview”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="36e5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As an example of that (as it were) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">dismalness</em>, Goff (in his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/1846046017" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/1846046017" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness</em></a>)<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22One+can%27t+help+wondering+whether+the+Churchlands%27+early+courtship+involved+poetry+expressing+the+strength+of+their+neuronal+activations+for+each+other.%C2%A0%5B%5D%22&pg=PT13&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Galileo_s_Error/lTd6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22One+can%27t+help+wondering+whether+the+Churchlands%27+early+courtship+involved+poetry+expressing+the+strength+of+their+neuronal+activations+for+each+other.%C2%A0%5B%5D%22&pg=PT13&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0c5b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> One can’t help wondering whether the Churchlands’ </i>[Paul and Patricia] <i>early courtship involved poetry expressing the strength of their neuronal activations for each other. </i>[]<i>”</i></span></blockquote><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="b012"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="783" data-image-id="1*XGyjHEaFePmrmkBr8bou4A.png" data-width="486" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*XGyjHEaFePmrmkBr8bou4A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="64d9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage from Goff also echoes what the Australian neurophysiologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_%28neurophysiologist%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Carew Eccles</a> (in his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Self_Controls_Its_Brain" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Self_Controls_Its_Brain" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">How the Self Controls Its Brain</em></a>) said many years before. Eccles <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+maintain+that+the+human+mystery+is+incredibly+demeaned+by+scientific+reductionism.%22&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=zqlRZdnbMbCxhbIP3JufwAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG33gFp9ARb2KtlPIQYfOUcuWQKBvl1&ved=0ahUKEwjZ-r-qlcCCAxWwWEEAHdzNB8gQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+maintain+that+the+human+mystery+is+incredibly+demeaned+by+scientific+reductionism.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlYiSSBtYWludGFpbiB0aGF0IHRoZSBodW1hbiBteXN0ZXJ5IGlzIGluY3JlZGlibHkgZGVtZWFuZWQgYnkgc2NpZW50aWZpYyByZWR1Y3Rpb25pc20uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I+maintain+that+the+human+mystery+is+incredibly+demeaned+by+scientific+reductionism.%22&sca_esv=581821413&source=hp&ei=zqlRZdnbMbCxhbIP3JufwAw&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVG33gFp9ARb2KtlPIQYfOUcuWQKBvl1&ved=0ahUKEwjZ-r-qlcCCAxWwWEEAHdzNB8gQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22I+maintain+that+the+human+mystery+is+incredibly+demeaned+by+scientific+reductionism.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IlYiSSBtYWludGFpbiB0aGF0IHRoZSBodW1hbiBteXN0ZXJ5IGlzIGluY3JlZGlibHkgZGVtZWFuZWQgYnkgc2NpZW50aWZpYyByZWR1Y3Rpb25pc20uIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2d5c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0fbb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In his book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Brain-Creation-John-Eccles/dp/0415032245#:~:text=Book%20overview&text=Sir%20John%20Eccles%20tells%20the,humans%20possessed%20of%20reflective%20consciousness." href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Brain-Creation-John-Eccles/dp/0415032245#:~:text=Book%20overview&text=Sir%20John%20Eccles%20tells%20the,humans%20possessed%20of%20reflective%20consciousness." rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self</em></a>, John Eccles also wrote<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22have+to+recognize+that+we+are+spiritual+beings+with+souls+existing+in+a+spiritual+world+as+well+as+material+beings+with+bodies+and+brains+existing+in+a+material%C2%A0world.%22&sca_esv=581821413&ei=Q6hRZYOCFuCGhbIPy6W2wA0&ved=0ahUKEwjDr_ftk8CCAxVgQ0EAHcuSDdgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22have+to+recognize+that+we+are+spiritual+beings+with+souls+existing+in+a+spiritual+world+as+well+as+material+beings+with+bodies+and+brains+existing+in+a+material%C2%A0world.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiqgEiaGF2ZSB0byByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB3ZSBhcmUgc3Bpcml0dWFsIGJlaW5ncyB3aXRoIHNvdWxzIGV4aXN0aW5nIGluIGEgc3Bpcml0dWFsIHdvcmxkIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgbWF0ZXJpYWwgYmVpbmdzIHdpdGggYm9kaWVzIGFuZCBicmFpbnMgZXhpc3RpbmcgaW4gYSBtYXRlcmlhbMKgd29ybGQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQHiAwQYACBB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22have+to+recognize+that+we+are+spiritual+beings+with+souls+existing+in+a+spiritual+world+as+well+as+material+beings+with+bodies+and+brains+existing+in+a+material%C2%A0world.%22&sca_esv=581821413&ei=Q6hRZYOCFuCGhbIPy6W2wA0&ved=0ahUKEwjDr_ftk8CCAxVgQ0EAHcuSDdgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22have+to+recognize+that+we+are+spiritual+beings+with+souls+existing+in+a+spiritual+world+as+well+as+material+beings+with+bodies+and+brains+existing+in+a+material%C2%A0world.%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiqgEiaGF2ZSB0byByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB3ZSBhcmUgc3Bpcml0dWFsIGJlaW5ncyB3aXRoIHNvdWxzIGV4aXN0aW5nIGluIGEgc3Bpcml0dWFsIHdvcmxkIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgbWF0ZXJpYWwgYmVpbmdzIHdpdGggYm9kaWVzIGFuZCBicmFpbnMgZXhpc3RpbmcgaW4gYSBtYXRlcmlhbMKgd29ybGQuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQHiAwQYACBB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="ccd2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“This belief must be classed as a superstition </i>[] [W]<i>e have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8ed5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So some materialists — and many others — have classed views like Eccles’s own as being “superstitious”, and also driven by “prior religious beliefs”. That is, such beliefs are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">prior</em> in the sense that many (even most) anti-materialists held them long before they indulged in any science or philosophy. This is certainly true of Eccles himself. Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/eccles-sir-john-carew-jack-338#:~:text=A%20%27sudden%20overwhelming%20experience%27%20(,him%20to%20be%20a%20neuroscientist." href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/eccles-sir-john-carew-jack-338#:~:text=A%20%27sudden%20overwhelming%20experience%27%20%28,him%20to%20be%20a%20neuroscientist." rel="noopener" target="_blank">this bit of biography</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="29bc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“A ‘sudden overwhelming experience’ </i>[] <i>during </i>[John Eccles’s]<i> first year at medical school took the form of a mystical feeling of existential wonder that owed much to his devout Catholicism and inspired him to be a neuroscientist.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5b5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Elsewhere, we also have <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Carew_Eccles#:~:text=as%20a%20neurotransmitter.-,The%20mystery%20of%20the%20self,theology%20in%20addition%20to%20science." href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Carew_Eccles#:~:text=as%20a%20neurotransmitter.-,The%20mystery%20of%20the%20self,theology%20in%20addition%20to%20science." rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="b14f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Eccles was, for much of his life, a practicing Roman Catholic </i>[]. [H]<i>e retained a deep sense of the reality of mystery, and of a spiritual realm, that for him left scope for theology in addition to science. Unlike many scientists, he did not think that science alone could fully understand the universe, or the mystery of life.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc6c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now guess what. Many anti-materialists return the favour by saying that the belief in materialism is itself (or is also) a “superstition”. (Readers may remember Deepak Chopra using the word “superstition” about materialism earlier.) Eccles elaborated <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Brain-Creation-John-Eccles/dp/0415032245" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Brain-Creation-John-Eccles/dp/0415032245" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9404"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Promissory materialism is simply a superstition held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a Messianic prophecy, with the promise of a future freed of all problems — a kind of Nirvana for our unfortunate successors.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="addf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">How should we take Eccles’s words “the materialist superstition”, “dogmatic materialists”, “Messianic prophecy”, “a kind of Nirvana”, etc?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2428"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Eccles was using a tried-and-tested technique which many self-conscious <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-materialist</em>s — along with those who reject Darwinian evolution — employ whenever they can.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="27f5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This is the trick.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2dba"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If a materialist, “evolutionist” or atheist accuses a anti-materialist, spiritual idealist or religious person of <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em>, then the latter three will accuse the former of being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> too. Thus, there’ve been lots of anti-materialists, spiritual idealists and religious people who’ve accused materialists, evolutionists and/or atheists of having “faith” in materialism, evolution and atheism. Indeed, they’ve also stated that “materialism [or atheism or evolution] is a religion”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="413c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">This kind of thing happens at a lot at<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>infant and junior schools. That is, when a little kid accuses another little kid of being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em>, then that other little kid then accuses the accuser of being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> too.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e429"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet it can be argued that very few anti-materialists, spiritual idealists and religious people genuinely do believe that materialism, atheism and evolution are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">religions,</em> or that people believe in materialism, atheism and evolution <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">purely on faith</em>. Thus, the comparisons between religion and materialism, atheism and evolution are often so vague, tangential and rhetorical that, in most cases, I doubt that these claims are even believed by most of the people who actually state them.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8119"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, to claim that materialists, evolutionists and atheists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">have faith in what they believe</em> is extremely useful, and it scores many strategic and rhetorical <span class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">points.</span></span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="7f22" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Part Two</span></h3><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5863" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Leftwing (i.e., Non-Religious) Politicised Science</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="7f5d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="509" data-image-id="1*u5bDLLG-KBZFD5ARkZBb3g.png" data-width="361" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*u5bDLLG-KBZFD5ARkZBb3g.png" /></span><figcaption class="imageCaption"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">Since its new editor, </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--figure-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Helmuth" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Helmuth" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">Laura Helmuth</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--figure-strong">, took over in 2020, <i>Scientific American</i> has seen at least part of its role as advancing various leftwing and/or progressive (some say “woke”) causes and goals. Sometimes explicitly so. (A couple of years back, an entire edition was devoted to political issues.)</strong></span></figcaption></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="a547"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many leftwing scientists and academics have had much to say about Intelligent Design being almost entirely motivated by Christian and <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">rightwing</em> political concerns. They are exactly right. However, the problem here is that these very same scientists and academics rarely (if ever) mention that there’s a similar<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> much-more-widespread</em> problem on the Left, as displayed in academic work and in various sciences.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d52b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[I’ll ignore Nazi <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">racial science</a>, Soviet <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Lysenkoism</a>, etc. here. Save to say that there certainly isn’t only a problem from Christians or religious people on the Right when it comes to the abuses and political manipulations of science.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c5f7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To put things simply.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="26e4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Whereas IDers want science to serve Christianity and right-wing politics, many other scientists and academics want science to serve leftwing and/or “progressive” politics. (More specifically, to serve leftwing political causes and goals.) Indeed, many leftwing scientists and academics have been explicit about their view that much (even all) science should serve “radical” or “progressive” politics.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5503"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So this problem doesn’t just come from one direction.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7770"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, it’s odd (or even perverse) that some of the most vocal scientific and academic critics of Intelligent Design <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">also</em> believe that science should serve politics. In addition, surely to say that this kind of thing only occurs on the Right and with “right-wing evangelicals” (or with IDers) is simply to display a politically-tribal position of the most obvious kind.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="0fae"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the words of the American theoretical physicist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Leonard Susskind</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="0434" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Leonard Susskind on Right-Wing Anti-Science</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="2fbd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="386" data-image-id="1*IsMA60i6REv5s7k5IUp-tg.png" data-width="595" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*IsMA60i6REv5s7k5IUp-tg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="1acb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In an article on Intelligent Design called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/SUSTGF" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/SUSTGF" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘The Good Fight’</a>, Leonard Susskind is at pains to single out only <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">rightwing</em> abuses and manipulations of science. Oddly, this occurs straight after Susskind warns his readers about tribalism and “the ability to divide the world into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ and then dehumanize”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="19a0"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">For example, Susskind <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22A+well-respected+scientific+community+can+be+a+major+inconvenience+if+one+is+trying+to+ignore+global+warming%2C+or+build+unworkable+missile-defense+systems%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=581805843&source=hp&ei=KZ5RZYaMJ7f-7_UP07KRiAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVGsOeS1YnCHLhaJRZQkqCZZstTILIn3&ved=0ahUKEwjGxPucisCCAxU3_7sIHVNZBIEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22A+well-respected+scientific+community+can+be+a+major+inconvenience+if+one+is+trying+to+ignore+global+warming%2C+or+build+unworkable+missile-defense+systems%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip4BIkEgd2VsbC1yZXNwZWN0ZWQgc2NpZW50aWZpYyBjb21tdW5pdHkgY2FuIGJlIGEgbWFqb3IgaW5jb252ZW5pZW5jZSBpZiBvbmUgaXMgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGlnbm9yZSBnbG9iYWwgd2FybWluZywgb3IgYnVpbGQgdW53b3JrYWJsZSBtaXNzaWxlLWRlZmVuc2Ugc3lzdGVtc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22A+well-respected+scientific+community+can+be+a+major+inconvenience+if+one+is+trying+to+ignore+global+warming%2C+or+build+unworkable+missile-defense+systems%E2%80%A6%22&sca_esv=581805843&source=hp&ei=KZ5RZYaMJ7f-7_UP07KRiAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVGsOeS1YnCHLhaJRZQkqCZZstTILIn3&ved=0ahUKEwjGxPucisCCAxU3_7sIHVNZBIEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22A+well-respected+scientific+community+can+be+a+major+inconvenience+if+one+is+trying+to+ignore+global+warming%2C+or+build+unworkable+missile-defense+systems%E2%80%A6%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ip4BIkEgd2VsbC1yZXNwZWN0ZWQgc2NpZW50aWZpYyBjb21tdW5pdHkgY2FuIGJlIGEgbWFqb3IgaW5jb252ZW5pZW5jZSBpZiBvbmUgaXMgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGlnbm9yZSBnbG9iYWwgd2FybWluZywgb3IgYnVpbGQgdW53b3JrYWJsZSBtaXNzaWxlLWRlZmVuc2Ugc3lzdGVtc-KApiJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a> a</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="6f04"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“well-respected scientific community can be a major inconvenience if one is trying to ignore global warming, or build unworkable missile-defense systems”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="3d58"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Elsewhere, Susskind adds:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="49c6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Even more disasters will result from ignoring the warnings of climatologists about global warming, or the advice of numerous scientists about how best to stem nuclear proliferation.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="68c6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Susskind then singles out yet more <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exclusively </em>right-wing suspects:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="39a7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[T]<i>he attacks of Senator Joseph McCarthy resulted in a deep suspicion of the motives of those scientists who lobbied for nuclear sanity. [] Today we have the ridiculous comedy of a Yale- and Harvard-educated U.S., president</i> [George Bush]<i> who plays to his audience by (deliberately?) mispronouncing the word ‘nuclear’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ad5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All this is precisely what you’d expect to read from a New York “liberal” - if one who also happens to be a well-known theoretical physicist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4755"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">However, a far more blatant case is that of Stephen Jay Gould.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="e23f" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Stephen Jay Gould’s Radical Science</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9491"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="534" data-image-id="1*uT_4AWPyFDE4-JqfIm7YXQ.png" data-width="800" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*uT_4AWPyFDE4-JqfIm7YXQ.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="e60e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Stephen J. Gould</a> was keen to point out that various scientists had advanced “right-wing”, “racist”, “capitalist”, and even “fascist” interpretations of various evolutionary and biological theories and data.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e5c3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So what did S.J. Gould do in response?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="95bb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He often put a leftwing (or even Marxist) interpretation of the very same evolutionary and biological theories and data.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="fa23"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More specifically, take Gould’s case against evolutionary “progress”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9fdc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Gould’s stance on evolutionary progress is deeply infused with his leftwing politics. Take<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Things-Are-Science-Tool-Kit/dp/0688149510/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223652744&sr=1-1" href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Things-Are-Science-Tool-Kit/dp/0688149510/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223652744&sr=1-1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this highly political and rhetorical passage</a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>from Gould:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="10dc"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[E]<i>volution has been saddled with a suite of concepts and meanings that represent long-standing Western social prejudices and psychological hopes, rather than any account of nature’s factuality.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="a565"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">More relevantly, Gould<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://epdf.tips/how-things-are-a-science-tool-kit-for-the-mind.html" href="https://epdf.tips/how-things-are-a-science-tool-kit-for-the-mind.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">concluded</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="63f7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Most pernicious and constraining among these prejudices is the concept of progress</i> []<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c8d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that shouldn’t be a surprise because Gould was a self-described “Marxist” (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1054.html" href="https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1054.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>) who was part of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/18/beneath-white-coat-radical-science-movement" href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/18/beneath-white-coat-radical-science-movement" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Radical Science Movement</a>. (Many other commentators — both positive and negative — have connected Gould’s views on <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium" rel="noopener" target="_blank">punctuated equilibrium</a> to his Marxism too — see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxism-and-science-and-punctuated-evolution-faq.htm" href="https://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxism-and-science-and-punctuated-evolution-faq.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c086"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ironically and despite the many denials, many of those who’re sympathetic to Gould have also freely admitted that his politics influenced his science. However, they believed that his politics influenced his science in only entirely <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">positive </em>ways. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1054.html" href="https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1054.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a> from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.marxists.org" href="http://www.marxists.org" rel="nofollow noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener noopener" target="_blank">www.marxists.org</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9914"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So there seems to be a contradiction here.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="392c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What I mean by <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">contradiction </em>is that it’s often the case that some of those who speak out against the political nature of science don’t do so because they believe that science should be<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apolitical" href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apolitical" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">apolitical</em></a>: they do so because they believe that science should be political in <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correct</em> ways. (See Elizabeth Anderson later.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="769e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_for_the_People" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Science for the People</a> and the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology_Study_Group" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology_Study_Group" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Sociobiology Study Group</a> in the 1970s and 1980s.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c692"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Stephen Jay Gould — again — was a member of these two groups. So too was <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rose" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rose" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Steven Rose</a> (an important member of the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28UK%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Socialist Workers Party</a> — see<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/21415/Manipulating+the+human+mind" href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/21415/Manipulating+the+human+mind" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> here</a>) and Richard Lewontin<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>(<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/52079/Richard+Lewontin+the+Marxist+geneticist" href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/52079/Richard+Lewontin+the+Marxist+geneticist" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the Marxist geneticist”</a>).</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="231e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The members of these two groups didn’t want to make sure that scientific theories were apolitical or that scientists kept out of politics. They wanted to make sure that scientific theories and scientists themselves were political in the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correct </em>(i.e., Marxist) ways.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ff5b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">[See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5231f274e4b0c34b2a132f95/t/5e45737681c87071297b62a6/1581609846803/Rose+and+Rose+1979+-+Radical+Science+and+its+Enemies.pdf" href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5231f274e4b0c34b2a132f95/t/5e45737681c87071297b62a6/1581609846803/Rose+and+Rose+1979+-+Radical+Science+and+its+Enemies.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Radical Science and its Enemies’</a>, by the Marxists Steven Rose and Hilary Rose.]</span></p><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="1764"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="830" data-image-id="1*OyidBxzbBW4s6nKs0i-X9w.png" data-width="721" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*OyidBxzbBW4s6nKs0i-X9w.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="410e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, it was no surprise that the <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_Against_Racism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_Against_Racism" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="International Committee Against Racism">International Committee Against Racism</a> (INCAR) grew out of this Far Left atmosphere of scientific intolerance. Specifically, INCAR attacked yet another scientist Gould had serious problems with — <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson" rel="noopener" target="_blank">E.O. Wilson</a>. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/education/anatomy-of-a-fierce-academic-feud.html" href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/education/anatomy-of-a-fierce-academic-feud.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="19cd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In detail, just before Wilson gave a talk, the microphone was taken over by members of INCAR. They <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Evolution/YRcAVvmE6eMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Racist+Wilson+you+can%27t+hide,+we+charge+you+with+genocide.%22&pg=PA418&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Evolution/YRcAVvmE6eMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Racist+Wilson+you+can%27t+hide,+we+charge+you+with+genocide.%22&pg=PA418&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">chanted</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8b88"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Racist Wilson you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cedc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Then these same activists rushed Wilson and poured a pitcher of ice water over his head.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="51d7"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now let’s move away from scientists (palaeontologists, biologists, geneticists, etc.) to a <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">philosopher</em> of science.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="2daf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Take the case of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_S._Anderson" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_S._Anderson" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Elizabeth Anderson</a>, who is a Professor of Philosophy and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://lsa.umich.edu/content/michigan-lsa/wgs/en/people.directory.html" href="https://lsa.umich.edu/content/michigan-lsa/wgs/en/people.directory.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Michigan</a>.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="00e5" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Elizabeth Anderson on Politically-Correct Science</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="9a64"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="524" data-image-id="1*1VWVenvogKVJng4DWFlvEA.png" data-width="930" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*1VWVenvogKVJng4DWFlvEA.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="93dd"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a paper called <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDFEA-2" href="https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDFEA-2" rel="noopener ugc nofollow noopener noopener" target="_blank">‘Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and a defence’</a>, Elizabeth Anderson argues that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_epistemology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_epistemology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">feminist naturalised epistemology</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="985a"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“rejects the positivist view that the epistemic merits of theories can be assessed independently of their ideological applications”.</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="0292"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Here again (as with S.J. Gould and his Marxist friends) it’s not the case of Anderson <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">discovering</em> the political and ideological positions of scientists (i.e., those which impinge on their accounts of the “the epistemic merits” of their scientific theories). It’s more a case of Anderson arguing that ideological and political considerations <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">should </em>impinge on the accounts of the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">epistemic merits</em> of scientific theories…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c0f5"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But not so quick.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4d83"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It should only be ideologically and politically <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">correct</em> considerations which do so.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="645d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So this particular expression of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science" rel="noopener" target="_blank">feminist philosophy of science</a> isn’t about discovering — or simply acknowledging — the role and importance of ideology and politics in science. It’s an expression of the normative and political view that scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">should</em> be fully ideologically and politically aware — all the way through their scientific work.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7457"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To be more specific.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9b2c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Anderson believes that all scientists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">should</em> always keep their eyes firmly fixed on all possible future (Anderson’s words) “political applications” of their scientific theories. (This ties in why what Leonard Susskind said earlier about “nuclear proliferation”, “missile-defense systems” and “global warming”.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7aa4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If Anderson is correct to argue that ideology and politics pervade all science, and that such politics and ideology should be <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">politically acceptable</em> (to whom?), then science (as well as the philosophy of science) effectively becomes a political battleground. More technically, science becomes a battleground in which, according to <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Antonio Gramsci</a> (writing in the 1930s), scientists and academics (like Anderson herself) take part in a <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gramscian+%22war+of+position%22&sca_esv=582133107&source=hp&ei=Ad9SZdK1JIbJhbIPp7u1iAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVLtEXAyQmfM0OFIfUKWbG0NKXLk7NXV&ved=0ahUKEwiSuriavMKCAxWGZEEAHaddDSEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gramscian+%22war+of+position%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhtHcmFtc2NpYW4gIndhciBvZiBwb3NpdGlvbiIyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABiKBRiGA0jcClAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFWoAFWqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gramscian+%22war+of+position%22&sca_esv=582133107&source=hp&ei=Ad9SZdK1JIbJhbIPp7u1iAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVLtEXAyQmfM0OFIfUKWbG0NKXLk7NXV&ved=0ahUKEwiSuriavMKCAxWGZEEAHaddDSEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Gramscian+%22war+of+position%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhtHcmFtc2NpYW4gIndhciBvZiBwb3NpdGlvbiIyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABiKBRiGA0jcClAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAFWoAFWqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“war of position”</a> to establish their own scientific and political <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gramsci+on+%22hegemony%22&sca_esv=582133107&ei=Bd9SZabKIJqihbIP_KCdmAk&ved=0ahUKEwjm4KicvMKCAxUaUUEAHXxQB5MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Gramsci+on+%22hegemony%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFUdyYW1zY2kgb24gImhlZ2Vtb255IjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I5mNQygZYll1wAXgBkAEAmAGxAaABpBWqAQQzMi4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICBxAAGA0YgATCAgYQABgeGA3CAggQABiKBRiGA8ICCBAAGIoFGJECwgIEEAAYHsICCBAAGAUYBxgewgIGEAAYBRgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGKABGMMEGArCAgQQIRgKwgIFEAAYogTCAgYQABgIGB7iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gramsci+on+%22hegemony%22&sca_esv=582133107&ei=Bd9SZabKIJqihbIP_KCdmAk&ved=0ahUKEwjm4KicvMKCAxUaUUEAHXxQB5MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Gramsci+on+%22hegemony%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFUdyYW1zY2kgb24gImhlZ2Vtb255IjIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I5mNQygZYll1wAXgBkAEAmAGxAaABpBWqAQQzMi4yuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICBxAAGA0YgATCAgYQABgeGA3CAggQABiKBRiGA8ICCBAAGIoFGJECwgIEEAAYHsICCBAAGAUYBxgewgIGEAAYBRgewgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGKABGMMEGArCAgQQIRgKwgIFEAAYogTCAgYQABgIGB7iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“hegemony”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="242a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So Anderson advances the position that all science is inherently political. (Historically, this was also the position of both the Nazi and Soviet states. See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/ics2003.pdf" href="https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/ics2003.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Ideologically Correct Science’</a>.) Thus, it follows (at least to her) that scientists and philosophers of science (or at least those who share her own politics) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> make sure that all science is both ideologically acceptable and politically correct.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="fe33"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="5570"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="42bb"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> Some of these self-described “anti-materialists” — Bernardo Kastrup is a very good example — class all sorts of different positions as “materialist”, and very many different people as “materialists”. [See <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22materialists%22&sca_esv=582133107&source=hp&ei=TN5SZZj6NoyfhbIPl-6T8AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVLsXDJRdCMiGIfI3DukLow5QsyrRVKX&ved=0ahUKEwiY0KPEu8KCAxWMT0EAHRf3BG4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22materialists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwIC0gIm1hdGVyaWFsaXN0cyIyCBAAGAgYHhgNMggQABgIGB4YDUj7elAAWL5kcAJ4AJABAJgBe6ABhRaqAQQzMi4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICERAuGIMBGMcBGLEDGNEDGIAEwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAggQABiABBixA8ICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICExAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgITEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMYCsICBBAuGAPCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABgWGB4YCsICBhAAGB4YDQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22materialists%22&sca_esv=582133107&source=hp&ei=TN5SZZj6NoyfhbIPl-6T8AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVLsXDJRdCMiGIfI3DukLow5QsyrRVKX&ved=0ahUKEwiY0KPEu8KCAxWMT0EAHRf3BG4Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Bernardo+Kastrup+-+%22materialists%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiFCZXJuYXJkbyBLYXN0cnVwIC0gIm1hdGVyaWFsaXN0cyIyCBAAGAgYHhgNMggQABgIGB4YDUj7elAAWL5kcAJ4AJABAJgBe6ABhRaqAQQzMi4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICERAuGIMBGMcBGLEDGNEDGIAEwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIFEC4YgATCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAggQABiABBixA8ICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICExAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BGArCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BwgITEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMYCsICBBAuGAPCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABgWGB4YCsICBhAAGB4YDQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6799"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2)</strong> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2011/07/evolution-intelligent-design-and-other.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2011/07/evolution-intelligent-design-and-other.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Here</a> is Bernardo Kastrup on Intelligent Design:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="beaa"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[] <i>I equated intelligent design with the notion of a supernatural being standing outside of nature and designing it like an architect designs a building. </i>[]<i> I have always had, and still have, a strong tendency to reject this story as simplistic, logically inconsistent, and somewhat arbitrary.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="202f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Oddly enough (or perhaps not), I could only find one blog post (the one just quoted) in Kastrup’s entire blog which discusses Intelligent Design.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3b44"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(3)</strong> It can also be said that an idealist like <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Donald Hoffman</a> is rarely (if ever) rhetorical about the matter of materialism. Yet most <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">anti-materialists</em> most certainly are. (Although Donald Hoffman is a strong critic of materialism, he often uses the term <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">physicalism</em></a> instead. See Hoffman’s uses of the term “physicalism” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman%2C+%22physicalism%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=zSJSZbWsNZCnhbIPlJm1iA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIw3eA1LdB2ybxSN_yT5RX3dkYOOcRG&ved=0ahUKEwj1xsfciMGCAxWQU0EAHZRMDdEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman%2C+%22physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih1Eb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiwgInBoeXNpY2FsaXNtIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUilN1AAWLAycAB4AJABAJgBhgGgAZkTqgEEMjQuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBRAuGIAEwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAhEQLhiKBRixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICCxAuGIMBGLEDGIAEwgIHEC4YDRiABA&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Hoffman%2C+%22physicalism%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=zSJSZbWsNZCnhbIPlJm1iA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIw3eA1LdB2ybxSN_yT5RX3dkYOOcRG&ved=0ahUKEwj1xsfciMGCAxWQU0EAHZRMDdEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Donald+Hoffman%2C+%22physicalism%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih1Eb25hbGQgSG9mZm1hbiwgInBoeXNpY2FsaXNtIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUilN1AAWLAycAB4AJABAJgBhgGgAZkTqgEEMjQuNbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1ALCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBRAuGIAEwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAhEQLhiKBRixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhivARjHARiABMICCxAuGIMBGLEDGIAEwgIHEC4YDRiABA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="7dd1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(4)</strong> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Red+Wedge+was+a+collective+of+musicians+formed+in+the+UK+in+1985+who+attempted+to+inculcate+youth+with+the+policies+of+the+Labour+Party+leading+up+to+the+1987+general+election+in+the+hope+of+ousting+the+Conservative+government+of+Margaret+Thatcher.%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=bSNSZfi6NKGohbIP8sio2As&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIxfZnJRso-inVK5rJVuOi3Ilxbtr1z&ved=0ahUKEwi4peyoicGCAxUhVEEAHXIkCrsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Red+Wedge+was+a+collective+of+musicians+formed+in+the+UK+in+1985+who+attempted+to+inculcate+youth+with+the+policies+of+the+Labour+Party+leading+up+to+the+1987+general+election+in+the+hope+of+ousting+the+Conservative+government+of+Margaret+Thatcher.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvoBIlJlZCBXZWRnZSB3YXMgYSBjb2xsZWN0aXZlIG9mIG11c2ljaWFucyBmb3JtZWQgaW4gdGhlIFVLIGluIDE5ODUgd2hvIGF0dGVtcHRlZCB0byBpbmN1bGNhdGUgeW91dGggd2l0aCB0aGUgcG9saWNpZXMgb2YgdGhlIExhYm91ciBQYXJ0eSBsZWFkaW5nIHVwIHRvIHRoZSAxOTg3IGdlbmVyYWwgZWxlY3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIGhvcGUgb2Ygb3VzdGluZyB0aGUgQ29uc2VydmF0aXZlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgb2YgTWFyZ2FyZXQgVGhhdGNoZXIuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Red+Wedge+was+a+collective+of+musicians+formed+in+the+UK+in+1985+who+attempted+to+inculcate+youth+with+the+policies+of+the+Labour+Party+leading+up+to+the+1987+general+election+in+the+hope+of+ousting+the+Conservative+government+of+Margaret+Thatcher.%22&sca_esv=581914905&source=hp&ei=bSNSZfi6NKGohbIP8sio2As&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVIxfZnJRso-inVK5rJVuOi3Ilxbtr1z&ved=0ahUKEwi4peyoicGCAxUhVEEAHXIkCrsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Red+Wedge+was+a+collective+of+musicians+formed+in+the+UK+in+1985+who+attempted+to+inculcate+youth+with+the+policies+of+the+Labour+Party+leading+up+to+the+1987+general+election+in+the+hope+of+ousting+the+Conservative+government+of+Margaret+Thatcher.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvoBIlJlZCBXZWRnZSB3YXMgYSBjb2xsZWN0aXZlIG9mIG11c2ljaWFucyBmb3JtZWQgaW4gdGhlIFVLIGluIDE5ODUgd2hvIGF0dGVtcHRlZCB0byBpbmN1bGNhdGUgeW91dGggd2l0aCB0aGUgcG9saWNpZXMgb2YgdGhlIExhYm91ciBQYXJ0eSBsZWFkaW5nIHVwIHRvIHRoZSAxOTg3IGdlbmVyYWwgZWxlY3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIGhvcGUgb2Ygb3VzdGluZyB0aGUgQ29uc2VydmF0aXZlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgb2YgTWFyZ2FyZXQgVGhhdGNoZXIuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">On Red Wedge</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8245"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Red Wedge was a collective of musicians formed in the UK in 1985 who attempted to inculcate youth with the policies of the Labour Party leading up to the 1987 general election in the hope of ousting the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="668a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(5)</strong> More quotes from Bernardo Kastrup on materialism:</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d87f"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Take <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01/the-surprising-thing-materialism-has.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01/the-surprising-thing-materialism-has.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">these words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="0a4a"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> Materialism is so blatantly absurd that most materialists — I strongly suspect — replace it with one or another private, implicit misapprehension of it in their own minds, which circumvents some of the absurdities at the price of internal contradictions conveniently overlooked. In other words, it is the naked implausibility of materialism that — ironically — makes it seem credible </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="4936"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">And <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/raving-materialists-and-their-nonsense.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/raving-materialists-and-their-nonsense.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">these</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8aec"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“All in all, it is useful to engage militant materialists from time to time. It gives striking insight into how a worldview that is so wrong manages to keep such a hold on the intellects of so many: it blinds you, immerses you in an unfathomable but insidious network of abstractions, hidden assumptions, and prejudices that infects every aspect of your thinking and judgement. It literally makes you unable to see simple and self-evident things right under your nose. It makes you project your own preconceptions, expectations, and misunderstandings onto everything others are saying, so you also become unable to listen. Deaf and blind, one can’t escape the cage. It’s surreal.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="9ab6"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/03/the-dawn-post-materialist-academic.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/03/the-dawn-post-materialist-academic.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">This</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="3121"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Throughout the two or three centuries of materialist hegemony in academia, religious and spiritual movements have competed for the hearts and minds of ordinary people. New Age, non-dualism, Buddhism, and a host of other related worldviews have certainly achieved a degree of influence in our culture. </i>[]<i> The <span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">metaphysics</span> underlying these spiritual traditions, however, has achieved no recognition in academia </i>[]<i>.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="1dee"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In a piece called ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/02/dim-witted-biologist-consciousness-is.html" href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/02/dim-witted-biologist-consciousness-is.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dim-witted biologist: consciousness is accidental</a>’, Kastrup writes:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="46f2"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Jerry Coyne just isn’t a serious participant in any discussion regarding the nature of mind and reality. </i>[]<i> It doesn’t take Coyne long to run the entire gamut of faulty logic; it’s quite remarkable. I suspect he is just too dim-witted in regard to philosophy to realize how dim-witted he is in regard to philosophy (the <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dunning–Kruger effect</a>).”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="13f4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Kastrup excused the abuse and rhetoric in this post by writing the following words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="c1ed"><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“(Important observation: the demeaning tone of this post, including the mildly disparaging use of a nickname </i>[Jerry Berry]<i>, has been carefully studied — sometimes down to specific sentence structures — to exactly match the tone with which Jerry Coyne writes about other people and their respective ideas, including myself. </i>[]<i> If you think my tone goes too far, then please remember that this is precisely my point.”</i></span></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d93"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Yet Kastrup doesn’t also inform his readers that he uses <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">exactly </em>the same kind of rhetorical and abusive language about virtually all his critics, as well as those people who have views he doesn’t like. That long list includes the following names and positions: Philip Goff, Sam Harris, Tim Maudlin, Daniel Dennett, Sabine Hossenfelder, Michael Graziano, Keith Frankish, Massimo Pigluicci,<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>academic philosophers generally<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">,</em> literally<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>all materialists, “our materialist culture”, etc.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5d93"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4567728250204249843.post-35014214438804564052023-12-01T22:46:00.000-08:002023-12-01T22:46:57.827-08:00My Revised Position on Daniel Dennett’s “Third-Person Absolutism”<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Some readers may believe that it’s a little conceited (or at least needlessly autobiographical) to refer back to — and even quote from — my </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">‘Chalmers’ Naturalistic Dualism vs Dennett’s Third-Person Absolutism’</strong></a><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">. However, my previous stance on Daniel Dennett’s “third-person absolutism”, alongside my revised stance on the same subject, may be informative. After all, reading both a critical and a positive stance on the same position is always helpful in philosophy. Thus, reading both critical and positive stance on the same position from the very same person — if at different times — may be helpful too.</strong></span></p><section class="section section--body" name="19c9"><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="4ce3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="628" data-image-id="1*2zUW0G3G3JwLjRbYeusZAA.jpeg" data-is-featured="true" data-width="1200" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*2zUW0G3G3JwLjRbYeusZAA.jpeg" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="9265"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It doesn’t help (or perhaps it does) that the American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Daniel Dennett</a> once referred to his own position as <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22third-person+absolutism%22%0D%0A&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=F9xKZdu_Fu-LhbIPkuiOkAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUrqJxNACr6fBudPfHmc3pH4vIsesob4&ved=0ahUKEwibp86mmLOCAxXvRUEAHRK0A3IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22third-person+absolutism%22%0D%0A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhoidGhpcmQtcGVyc29uIGFic29sdXRpc20iCkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQI&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22third-person+absolutism%22%0D%0A&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=F9xKZdu_Fu-LhbIPkuiOkAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUrqJxNACr6fBudPfHmc3pH4vIsesob4&ved=0ahUKEwibp86mmLOCAxXvRUEAHRK0A3IQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22third-person+absolutism%22%0D%0A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhoidGhpcmQtcGVyc29uIGFic29sdXRpc20iCkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQI&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“third-person absolutism”</a>. [Did Dennett actually use these words? See <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 1</strong>.] That said, wouldn’t a genuine <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">absolutist</em> stay well clear away from advertising the fact that he is one? In other words, perhaps Dennett was simply being ironic and rhetorical when he used that self-description… Sure, perhaps he was being <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">serious </em>too.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="f3fc" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Consciousness Explained Away?</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="a32a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="734" data-image-id="1*e000DU2owUHKp_5uMSbf6A.png" data-width="515" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*e000DU2owUHKp_5uMSbf6A.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="c500"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Many philosophers and commentators have been very keen to tell us — and they’ve done so many times — that Dennett’s book <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Consciousness Explained</em></a> should really have been called ‘<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+Explained+Away%22&sca_esv=579562946&ei=iDRHZc7SM7u_hbIP_oGK6AM&ved=0ahUKEwjOtvSKnKyCAxW7X0EAHf6AAj0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+Explained+Away%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHiJDb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIEV4cGxhaW5lZCBBd2F5IjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDSLsqUNwNWKAkcAJ4AZABAJgB7gKgAdgEqgEHMC4yLjAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgUQABiABOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+Explained+Away%22&sca_esv=579562946&ei=iDRHZc7SM7u_hbIP_oGK6AM&ved=0ahUKEwjOtvSKnKyCAxW7X0EAHf6AAj0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+Explained+Away%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHiJDb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIEV4cGxhaW5lZCBBd2F5IjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDSLsqUNwNWKAkcAJ4AZABAJgB7gKgAdgEqgEHMC4yLjAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgUQABiABOIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Consciousness Explained Away</a>’ or <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dennett+-+%22Consciousness+Ignored%27&sca_esv=579562946&ei=9DRHZYXGKMW3hbIPjKW_sA8&ved=0ahUKEwiFkKm-nKyCAxXFW0EAHYzSD_YQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Dennett+-+%22Consciousness+Ignored%27&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIURlbm5ldHQgLSAiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBJZ25vcmVkJzIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEj2HlClB1iDGnABeAGQAQKYAdoIoAHVEKoBDTAuMS4xLjUtMS4wLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLAD4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dennett+-+%22Consciousness+Ignored%27&sca_esv=579562946&ei=9DRHZYXGKMW3hbIPjKW_sA8&ved=0ahUKEwiFkKm-nKyCAxXFW0EAHYzSD_YQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Dennett+-+%22Consciousness+Ignored%27&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIURlbm5ldHQgLSAiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBJZ25vcmVkJzIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEj2HlClB1iDGnABeAGQAQKYAdoIoAHVEKoBDTAuMS4xLjUtMS4wLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLAD4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Consciousness Ignored’</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e1f6"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Australian philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">David Chalmers</a> didn’t go that far. However, he did say that what he calls “type-A materialists” (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=type-A+materialists&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=LE1IZeDlCYOiqtsPxbmv-A4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhbPCbvZKa2aEW9gtIeiEsTPsI8eaSb&ved=0ahUKEwjgq7zcp66CAxUDkWoFHcXcC-8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=type-A+materialists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhN0eXBlLUEgbWF0ZXJpYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUiPEFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAHFAaABxQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=type-A+materialists&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=LE1IZeDlCYOiqtsPxbmv-A4&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhbPCbvZKa2aEW9gtIeiEsTPsI8eaSb&ved=0ahUKEwjgq7zcp66CAxUDkWoFHcXcC-8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=type-A+materialists&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhN0eXBlLUEgbWF0ZXJpYWxpc3RzMgUQIRigAUiPEFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAHFAaABxQGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Explaining_Consciousness/t4KNDxsj7fcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22there+is+not+even+a+distinct+question+of+consciousness:+once+we+know+about+the+functions+that+a+system+performs,+we+thereby+know+everything+interesting+there+is+to%C2%A0know%22.&pg=PA380&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Explaining_Consciousness/t4KNDxsj7fcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22there+is+not+even+a+distinct+question+of+consciousness:+once+we+know+about+the+functions+that+a+system+performs,+we+thereby+know+everything+interesting+there+is+to%C2%A0know%22.&pg=PA380&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">believe that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="55ef"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“there is not even a distinct question of consciousness: once we know about the functions that a system performs, we thereby know everything interesting there is to know”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="86d3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">According to Chalmers, then, Dennett fits the description above.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="479d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet when you read Dennett (at least in different passages and at different times), he doesn’t deny consciousness at all. Instead, he simply has his own particular take on it.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c433"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Of course, to some (even many) people, Dennett’s particular take does still <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">explain consciousness away.</em></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="85eb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The American philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Searle</a>, for example,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>had <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/" href="https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a> to say on this matter:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="e9b4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“To put it as clearly as I can: in his book, </i><span class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em">Consciousness<i> </i>Explained</span><i>, Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. He continues to use the word, but he means something different by it. For him, it refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="cc25"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As stated, Chalmers (perhaps unlike Searle) doesn’t state that Dennett denies consciousness <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">outrigh</em>t. Instead, he tells us that Dennett believes that the sum of mind-brain functions, behaviour, “verbal reports” (see <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22verbal+reports%22&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=601IZYKCBOqtqtsP4euxyAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhb-3dC0uvV82gySnCprXvrRSiWPi7n&ved=0ahUKEwjCo8C3qK6CAxXqlmoFHeF1DKkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22verbal+reports%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhAidmVyYmFsIHJlcG9ydHMiMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I8whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBwAGgAcABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22verbal+reports%22&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=601IZYKCBOqtqtsP4euxyAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhb-3dC0uvV82gySnCprXvrRSiWPi7n&ved=0ahUKEwjCo8C3qK6CAxXqlmoFHeF1DKkQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22verbal+reports%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhAidmVyYmFsIHJlcG9ydHMiMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5I8whQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBwAGgAcABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>), etc. are what <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">constitute</em> consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="eccb"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In Chalmers’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22there+is+no+interesting+fact+about+the+mind%2C+conceptually+distinct+from+the+functional+facts%2C+that+needs+to+be+accommodated+in+our+theories%22&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=rk1IZaDIDI-FqtsPn5GAgA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhbvmMRpr4bbnreFqN3BDgcY9_WVwMH&ved=0ahUKEwig172aqK6CAxWPgmoFHZ8IANAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22there+is+no+interesting+fact+about+the+mind%2C+conceptually+distinct+from+the+functional+facts%2C+that+needs+to+be+accommodated+in+our+theories%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Io0BInRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGZhY3QgYWJvdXQgdGhlIG1pbmQsIGNvbmNlcHR1YWxseSBkaXN0aW5jdCBmcm9tIHRoZSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGZhY3RzLCB0aGF0IG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlIGFjY29tbW9kYXRlZCBpbiBvdXIgdGhlb3JpZXMiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22there+is+no+interesting+fact+about+the+mind%2C+conceptually+distinct+from+the+functional+facts%2C+that+needs+to+be+accommodated+in+our+theories%22&sca_esv=579693776&source=hp&ei=rk1IZaDIDI-FqtsPn5GAgA0&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUhbvmMRpr4bbnreFqN3BDgcY9_WVwMH&ved=0ahUKEwig172aqK6CAxWPgmoFHZ8IANAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22there+is+no+interesting+fact+about+the+mind%2C+conceptually+distinct+from+the+functional+facts%2C+that+needs+to+be+accommodated+in+our+theories%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Io0BInRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGZhY3QgYWJvdXQgdGhlIG1pbmQsIGNvbmNlcHR1YWxseSBkaXN0aW5jdCBmcm9tIHRoZSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGZhY3RzLCB0aGF0IG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlIGFjY29tbW9kYXRlZCBpbiBvdXIgdGhlb3JpZXMiSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">own words</a>, when it comes to Dennett’s position,</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="a204"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“there is no interesting fact about the mind, conceptually distinct from the functional facts, that needs to be accommodated in our theories”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d669"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a previous essay, I too had an <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">absolutist</em> take on the correct definition of the word “consciousness”. Alternatively, I had an absolutist take on <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what consciousness is</em>. For example, I <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="39ff"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>sn’t </i>[Dennett’s position]<i> like someone saying that ‘God exists’, and then it turns out that what he means by the word ‘God’ is ‘The ghost who lives at the bottom of my garden’?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="253e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So, according to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some definition</em>s of consciousness, it can be argued that Dennett would say that conscious does<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> not </em>exist. However, according to his own definition (as mentioned by Chalmers above), consciousness <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">does</em> exist.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="93fc"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, perhaps we’re left with a situation in which consciousness exists <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">according to some definitions</em> of the word ‘consciousness’, but not others.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="d6e3"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So now take those philosophers and laypeople who stress <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">how things feel</em> (or <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">how things seem</em>) and/or “fundamental and rudimentary” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" rel="noopener" target="_blank">qualia</a>. Most of these people<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>would deem it ridiculous to say that definitions have anything to do with these matters…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="952d"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">But definitions — and the (technical) terms we use — do have a lot to do with the matter of consciousness.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="1119"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, it’s not those (to use Philip Goff’s words) <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/0525564772" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“private seemings”</a> which are the problem, but <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what we say about them</em>. More relevantly, it’s how we philosophise and theorise about them. Indeed, it’s also about how <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">reading</em> <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">books about consciousness </em>(or seeing the word “qualia” all the time) may influence <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">what we say</em> about consciousness. (Patricia Churchland once said that the word <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-800-explaining-consciousness-and-the-other-biggest-mysteries-of-your-brain/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“‘qualia’ is a term of art, which was introduced by philosophers”</a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ef27"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The English philosopher <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_(philosopher)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Goff_%28philosopher%29" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Philip Goff</a> has also used the following statement a fair amount of times:<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&source=hp&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&sca_esv=580054589&source=hp&ei=QfBJZY2oKOC1hbIP4-6NoA8&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUn-UURf-IbhaGk8BgWK9Lm-e4BNposY&ved=0ahUKEwjNzJeyt7GCAxXgWkEAHWN3A_QQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Consciousness+is+a+datum+in+its+own+right.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiwiQ29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyBpcyBhIGRhdHVtIGluIGl0cyBvd24gcmlnaHQuIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSLEKUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZYBoAGWAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“Consciousness is a datum in its own right.”</a></span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c127"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Now how does that “datum” stand within the context of all the books and papers Goff and others have read on the subject of consciousness? What’s more, can any distinction at all be made between such a (supposed?) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">datum </em>and all the books (or theories) each philosopher and layperson has read about it?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="62be"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So if (some) readers have read loads of books on consciousness (or read the word ‘qualia’ many times), then surely that will impact on how they describe and/or theorise about any ostensibly <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">private seemings</em> they may have. [See Paul Churchland’s position on a related theme in <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">note 2</strong>.]</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="33bc" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Chalmers on Dennett’s Third-Person Absolutism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="c7a2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="521" data-image-id="1*5tsjm2QVqqne2whbwlMLpw.png" data-width="804" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*5tsjm2QVqqne2whbwlMLpw.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="de06"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">My previous criticisms of Daniel Dennett’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">third-person absolutism</em> were perhaps a little too dependent on David Chalmers’ own. That said, I did have problems with Dennett’s positions before looking into what Chalmers — particularly — had to say on the matter.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="5dca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers expressed Dennett’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">functionalist absolutism</em> by citing <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Character_of_Consciousness/dpRoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%E2%80%8AOne%27s+%27ability+to+be+moved+to+tears%27+and+%27blithe+disregard+of+perceptual+details%27+are+striking+phenomena,+but+they+are+far+from+the+most+obvious+phenomena+that+I+(at+least)+find+when+I+introspect.%22&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Character_of_Consciousness/dpRoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%E2%80%8AOne%27s+%27ability+to+be+moved+to+tears%27+and+%27blithe+disregard+of+perceptual+details%27+are+striking+phenomena,+but+they+are+far+from+the+most+obvious+phenomena+that+I+%28at+least%29+find+when+I+introspect.%22&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following examples</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9700"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>t is far from obvious that even all the items on Dennett’s list — ‘feelings of foreboding’, ‘fantasies’, ‘delight and dismay’ — are purely functional matters. </i>[]<i> One’s ‘ability to be moved to tears’ and ‘blithe disregard of perceptual details’ are striking phenomena, but they are far from the most obvious phenomena that I (at least) find when I introspect.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="8a48"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">One of my own responses to this passage from Chalmers was <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" href="https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2015/10/chalmers-naturalistic-dualism-vs.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="aa12"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Prima facie, it does seem amazing that Dennett sees such things as solely functional matters.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="46d4"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I then added the following words:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7ae1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[I]<i>t’s hard to understand what it could mean to say that the ‘ability to be moved to tears’ is a purely functional matter. (What’s with the word ‘ability’?)”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="882e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet it now seems that it’s not that there aren’t any <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">private seemings</em>, but that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">we can’t do anything with them</em>. That, in itself, isn’t to deny the seemings or the privacy. After all, if the reader thinks to himself a certain thought (say, that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">elephants are pink and eat marbles</em>), then there’s no way that Dennett — or every scientist on the planet in a group effort— could guess what he or she is thinking. Thus, isn’t that particular thought <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">private</em>?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ebb2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers also defined Dennett’s position as the view that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Blackwell_Companion_to_Consciousness/B1lRZmOzuJ0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22what+is+not+externally+verifiable+cannot+be+real%22&pg=PA231&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Blackwell_Companion_to_Consciousness/B1lRZmOzuJ0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22what+is+not+externally+verifiable+cannot+be+real%22&pg=PA231&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“what is not externally verifiable cannot be real”</a>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="207a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It can be presumed that Chalmers was arguing that Dennett’s position is that there <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">must</em> be a fundamental (as well as theoretical) connection between any <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">x</em> being real (or existing), and whether or not we can<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> externally verify</em> it<em class="markup--em markup--p-em">.</em> On this reading of Dennett, then, if we <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">can’t</em> externally verify<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> x</em>, then it doesn’t exist. It’s not real.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="dcf9"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, perhaps the aforementioned thought about pink elephants isn’t <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">real</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3337"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet one wonders if Dennett actually used the word “real” in this context.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ac10"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Sure, he would have certainly emphasised <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">external verifiability. </em>However,<em class="markup--em markup--p-em"> </em>the word “real” seems like Chalmers’ own personal addition.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bc58"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">As for Dennett’s own responses to Chalmers’ criticisms.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="6163"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It’s not<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>surprising that Dennett <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Character_of_Consciousness/dpRoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22to+provide+%27independent%27+evidence+(presumably+behavioral+or+functional+evidence)+for+the+%27postulation%27+of+experience%22&pg=PA33&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Character_of_Consciousness/dpRoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22to+provide+%27independent%27+evidence+%28presumably+behavioral+or+functional+evidence%29+for+the+%27postulation%27+of+experience%22&pg=PA33&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">asked Chalmers</a> (at least according to Chalmers himself)</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="f014"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“to provide ‘independent’ evidence (presumably behavioral or functional evidence) for the ‘postulation’ of experience”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="5c4a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That passage neatly expresses Dennett’s (supposed?) <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">third-person absolutism</em>.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="4213"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Such a position, according to Chalmers, allows and encourages <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Explaining_Consciousness/t4KNDxsj7fcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22a+third-person+perspective+on+one%27s+first-person+perspective%22&pg=PA384&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Explaining_Consciousness/t4KNDxsj7fcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22a+third-person+perspective+on+one%27s+first-person+perspective%22&pg=PA384&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“a third-person perspective on one’s first-person perspective”</a>. (This is an articulation of Dennett’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">heterophenomenology</em></a>.)</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="590c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Yet Dennett simply seems to be advancing a scientific position on the subject of consciousness…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e830"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">So where is the <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">absolutism</em> in that?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="bcda"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After all, because Dennett is attempting to make the study of consciousness scientific, then, sure, we can go with Chalmers when he said that (in Dennett’s <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">Consciousness Explained) </em>“heterophenomenology” (like Quine’s position on “overt behaviour” <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=quine+on+meaning+and+%22overt+behaviour%22&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=XuVKZYTTJNfe0PEPtOeu2AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUrzbunojLqtGqxBxI23IR8wYWUOd5G4&ved=0ahUKEwiE-pqTobOCAxVXLzQIHbSzC2sQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=quine+on+meaning+and+%22overt+behaviour%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZxdWluZSBvbiBtZWFuaW5nIGFuZCAib3ZlcnQgYmVoYXZpb3VyIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiOWFAAWOtScAJ4AJABAJgBvQKgAZ9KqgEGMi0zNy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMY1ALCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICBRAuGIAEwgITEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICEBAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BGArCAg0QLhiABBixAxjUAhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAggQIRgWGB4YHcICChAhGBYYHhgPGB3CAggQABgWGB4YD8ICCBAAGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBXCAgQQIRgK&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=quine+on+meaning+and+%22overt+behaviour%22&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=XuVKZYTTJNfe0PEPtOeu2AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUrzbunojLqtGqxBxI23IR8wYWUOd5G4&ved=0ahUKEwiE-pqTobOCAxVXLzQIHbSzC2sQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=quine+on+meaning+and+%22overt+behaviour%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiZxdWluZSBvbiBtZWFuaW5nIGFuZCAib3ZlcnQgYmVoYXZpb3VyIjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUiOWFAAWOtScAJ4AJABAJgBvQKgAZ9KqgEGMi0zNy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMY1ALCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAuGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAgUQABiABMICBRAuGIAEwgITEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QMYCsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEC4YgAQYsQMYCsICEBAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGK8BGArCAg0QLhiABBixAxjUAhgKwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAggQIRgWGB4YHcICChAhGBYYHhgPGB3CAggQABgWGB4YD8ICCBAAGIoFGIYDwgIHECEYoAEYCsICBBAhGBXCAgQQIRgK&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">when it came to meaning</a>) is deemed to be<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>“the central source of data”.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="8c7c"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a sense, it can’t be anything else but the main — or even only — <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">source of data.</em> Surely the alternative is taking the words about consciousness, qualia, etc. of all subjects to be gospel. Yet what if such subjects contradict each other on these matters?</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3768"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers also <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+only+%27seemings%27+that+need+explaining+are+dispositions+to+react+and%C2%A0report%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=kP1JZYOXFuiUhbIPwYGymAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoLoEiN69pu60mc_VDlGo3Tk-GJdILq&ved=0ahUKEwiDn9CKxLGCAxVoSkEAHcGADIMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=the+only+%27seemings%27+that+need+explaining+are+dispositions+to+react+and%C2%A0report%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ik90aGUgb25seSAnc2VlbWluZ3MnIHRoYXQgbmVlZCBleHBsYWluaW5nIGFyZSBkaXNwb3NpdGlvbnMgdG8gcmVhY3QgYW5kwqByZXBvcnQiMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQLhgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDSNYXUPUKWPUKcAF4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAagCCg&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+only+%27seemings%27+that+need+explaining+are+dispositions+to+react+and%C2%A0report%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=kP1JZYOXFuiUhbIPwYGymAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoLoEiN69pu60mc_VDlGo3Tk-GJdILq&ved=0ahUKEwiDn9CKxLGCAxVoSkEAHcGADIMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=the+only+%27seemings%27+that+need+explaining+are+dispositions+to+react+and%C2%A0report%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ik90aGUgb25seSAnc2VlbWluZ3MnIHRoYXQgbmVlZCBleHBsYWluaW5nIGFyZSBkaXNwb3NpdGlvbnMgdG8gcmVhY3QgYW5kwqByZXBvcnQiMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQLhgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDMhAQABgDGI8BGOUCGOoCGIwDSNYXUPUKWPUKcAF4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAagCCg&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">tells us that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="7a4b"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“the only ‘seemings’ that need explaining are dispositions to react and report”.</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="e58a"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Again, this is Dennett’s attempt to make the subject of consciousness scientific.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="e651"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That’s primarily because even though there are <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">very many</em> philosophical, (purely) phenomenological, and religious (or “spiritual”) accounts of consciousness, these accounts are still endlessly disputed, and of no help to scientists…</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="ea0f"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Still,<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong>Chalmers isn’t happy with Dennett’s position.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f7cf"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He tells us that it’s an <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22unargued+assumption+that+such+reports+are+all+that+need+explaining%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=zf1JZdCvGK6-hbIPq6mEgAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoL3Zx1iMjBi21Kxi6ftOOLYqgq5nqo&ved=0ahUKEwiQyt2nxLGCAxUuX0EAHasUAXAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22unargued+assumption+that+such+reports+are+all+that+need+explaining%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQidW5hcmd1ZWQgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggcmVwb3J0cyBhcmUgYWxsIHRoYXQgbmVlZCBleHBsYWluaW5nIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22unargued+assumption+that+such+reports+are+all+that+need+explaining%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=zf1JZdCvGK6-hbIPq6mEgAc&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoL3Zx1iMjBi21Kxi6ftOOLYqgq5nqo&ved=0ahUKEwiQyt2nxLGCAxUuX0EAHasUAXAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22unargued+assumption+that+such+reports+are+all+that+need+explaining%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkQidW5hcmd1ZWQgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggcmVwb3J0cyBhcmUgYWxsIHRoYXQgbmVlZCBleHBsYWluaW5nIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“unargued assumption that such reports are all that need explaining”</a>. In other words, Chalmers believes that <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">some things</em> over and above the “reports” also “need explaining”. These things include how things feel (or seem) to the subject, qualia (or phenomenal states), etc… <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">whichever</em> terms or phrases one uses.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f4ca"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">All that said, eight years ago I wrote the following:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9a90"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“</i>[]<i> if we follow the logic of Dennett’s behaviourism to its end, can we accept a first-person perspective at all? (That is, even if that perspective is accounted for in third-person terms.) In other words, is there a first-person perspective on </i>anything<i> in Dennett’s scientific book?”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="c8b1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I even became a bit personal with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Dennett%27s+language+here+is+ringing+with+scientific+cliches.+He+talks+of+%27independent+evidence%27+and+the+%27postulation+of+experience%27.%22&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=IuZKZcfMD5KGhbIP74GBwAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUr0Mj0ceYQdm3omTBqz6xWxzpKdV_Ah&ved=0ahUKEwjH5cDwobOCAxUSQ0EAHe9AAIgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Dennett%27s+language+here+is+ringing+with+scientific+cliches.+He+talks+of+%27independent+evidence%27+and+the+%27postulation+of+experience%27.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoUBIkRlbm5ldHQncyBsYW5ndWFnZSBoZXJlIGlzIHJpbmdpbmcgd2l0aCBzY2llbnRpZmljIGNsaWNoZXMuIEhlIHRhbGtzIG9mICdpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBldmlkZW5jZScgYW5kIHRoZSAncG9zdHVsYXRpb24gb2YgZXhwZXJpZW5jZScuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Dennett%27s+language+here+is+ringing+with+scientific+cliches.+He+talks+of+%27independent+evidence%27+and+the+%27postulation+of+experience%27.%22&sca_esv=580323760&source=hp&ei=IuZKZcfMD5KGhbIP74GBwAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUr0Mj0ceYQdm3omTBqz6xWxzpKdV_Ah&ved=0ahUKEwjH5cDwobOCAxUSQ0EAHe9AAIgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22Dennett%27s+language+here+is+ringing+with+scientific+cliches.+He+talks+of+%27independent+evidence%27+and+the+%27postulation+of+experience%27.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IoUBIkRlbm5ldHQncyBsYW5ndWFnZSBoZXJlIGlzIHJpbmdpbmcgd2l0aCBzY2llbnRpZmljIGNsaWNoZXMuIEhlIHRhbGtzIG9mICdpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBldmlkZW5jZScgYW5kIHRoZSAncG9zdHVsYXRpb24gb2YgZXhwZXJpZW5jZScuIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQE&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">these words</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2e8e"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Dennett’s language here is ringing with scientific clichés. He talks of ‘independent evidence’ and the ‘postulation of experience’.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="d2a2"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I also stated that “the idea that consciousness is ‘postulated’ is very strange”.</span></p><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="aaee" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion: Chalmers’ Stance on Dennett’s Materialism</span></h3><figure class="graf graf--figure" name="0f35"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img class="graf-image" data-height="428" data-image-id="1*6jhNNDvraj8J_KhfgFQ-Pg.png" data-width="764" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*6jhNNDvraj8J_KhfgFQ-Pg.png" /></span></figure><p class="graf graf--p" name="2405"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers argued (if sometimes implicitly) that Dennett stresses “verbal reports”, etc. because he wants to defend — or even <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">save </em>— what Chalmers calls “materialism”. Thus, Chalmers quoted Dennett <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27if+something+more+than+functions+needs+explaining%2C+then+materialism+cannot+explain%C2%A0it%27%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=DP5JZYTiNZuAhbIPmsmB-AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoMHKnRG-6XJtM2RDHIhYGaulhGdlFT&ved=0ahUKEwiEmIDGxLGCAxUbQEEAHZpkAG8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27if+something+more+than+functions+needs+explaining%2C+then+materialism+cannot+explain%C2%A0it%27%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IloiJ2lmIHNvbWV0aGluZyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gZnVuY3Rpb25zIG5lZWRzIGV4cGxhaW5pbmcsIHRoZW4gbWF0ZXJpYWxpc20gY2Fubm90IGV4cGxhaW7CoGl0JyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%27if+something+more+than+functions+needs+explaining%2C+then+materialism+cannot+explain%C2%A0it%27%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=DP5JZYTiNZuAhbIPmsmB-AY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoMHKnRG-6XJtM2RDHIhYGaulhGdlFT&ved=0ahUKEwiEmIDGxLGCAxUbQEEAHZpkAG8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22%27if+something+more+than+functions+needs+explaining%2C+then+materialism+cannot+explain%C2%A0it%27%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IloiJ2lmIHNvbWV0aGluZyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gZnVuY3Rpb25zIG5lZWRzIGV4cGxhaW5pbmcsIHRoZW4gbWF0ZXJpYWxpc20gY2Fubm90IGV4cGxhaW7CoGl0JyJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">saying that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="8541"><em class="markup--em markup--pullquote-em"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“‘if something more than functions needs explaining, then materialism cannot explain it’”.</span></em></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="795e"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Chalmers also said that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22function+is+all+we+have+access+to+at+the+personal+level%22&sca_esv=580067936&ei=OP5JZbKBD8-ihbIP5_CAiAM&ved=0ahUKEwiy_dbaxLGCAxVPUUEAHWc4ADEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22function+is+all+we+have+access+to+at+the+personal+level%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiOSJmdW5jdGlvbiBpcyBhbGwgd2UgaGF2ZSBhY2Nlc3MgdG8gYXQgdGhlIHBlcnNvbmFsIGxldmVsIki1D1AAWL8IcAB4AJABAJgBtgKgAdQEqgEFMi0xLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHiAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22function+is+all+we+have+access+to+at+the+personal+level%22&sca_esv=580067936&ei=OP5JZbKBD8-ihbIP5_CAiAM&ved=0ahUKEwiy_dbaxLGCAxVPUUEAHWc4ADEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22function+is+all+we+have+access+to+at+the+personal+level%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiOSJmdW5jdGlvbiBpcyBhbGwgd2UgaGF2ZSBhY2Nlc3MgdG8gYXQgdGhlIHBlcnNvbmFsIGxldmVsIki1D1AAWL8IcAB4AJABAJgBtgKgAdQEqgEFMi0xLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHiAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">“the idea that function is all we have access to at the personal level</a> [is] false”. In my other essay, I too wrote: “I would say: <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">obviously</em> false.”</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="c2ed"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In terms of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism" rel="noopener" target="_blank">materialism</a> itself, Chalmers’ said <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What%27s+controversial+about+my+own+view+is+not+so+much+that+I+defend+the+existence+of+qualia%2C+but+that+I+argue+that+they+are+nonphysical.%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=cv5JZc-GCvalkdUP_eOkmAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoMggB2wtaDx-o-4vLZ8iVH5Z4M9Ozn&ved=0ahUKEwjPh6b2xLGCAxX2UqQEHf0xCUMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22What%27s+controversial+about+my+own+view+is+not+so+much+that+I+defend+the+existence+of+qualia%2C+but+that+I+argue+that+they+are+nonphysical.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IooBIldoYXQncyBjb250cm92ZXJzaWFsIGFib3V0IG15IG93biB2aWV3IGlzIG5vdCBzbyBtdWNoIHRoYXQgSSBkZWZlbmQgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiBxdWFsaWEsIGJ1dCB0aGF0IEkgYXJndWUgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBub25waHlzaWNhbC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22What%27s+controversial+about+my+own+view+is+not+so+much+that+I+defend+the+existence+of+qualia%2C+but+that+I+argue+that+they+are+nonphysical.%22&sca_esv=580067936&source=hp&ei=cv5JZc-GCvalkdUP_eOkmAQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZUoMggB2wtaDx-o-4vLZ8iVH5Z4M9Ozn&ved=0ahUKEwjPh6b2xLGCAxX2UqQEHf0xCUMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=%22What%27s+controversial+about+my+own+view+is+not+so+much+that+I+defend+the+existence+of+qualia%2C+but+that+I+argue+that+they+are+nonphysical.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IooBIldoYXQncyBjb250cm92ZXJzaWFsIGFib3V0IG15IG93biB2aWV3IGlzIG5vdCBzbyBtdWNoIHRoYXQgSSBkZWZlbmQgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiBxdWFsaWEsIGJ1dCB0aGF0IEkgYXJndWUgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBub25waHlzaWNhbC4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="2bd7"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“What’s controversial about my own view is not so much that I defend the existence of qualia, but that I argue that they are nonphysical.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="7a47"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If consciousness is “nonphysical”, as Chalmers believes, then of course “materialism cannot explain it”. That’s true <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">by definition</em>.</span></p></div></div></section><section class="section section--body" name="d46e"><div class="section-divider"><hr class="section-divider" /></div><div class="section-content"><div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn"><h3 class="graf graf--h3" name="6888"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">Notes:</span></h3><p class="graf graf--p" name="33b3"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(1)</strong> In his paper <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://consc.net/papers/moving.html#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20key%20lies%20in,focus%20of%20what%20one%20sees." href="https://consc.net/papers/moving.html#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20key%20lies%20in,focus%20of%20what%20one%20sees." rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness’</a>), David Chalmers claimed that Daniel Dennett used the words “third-person absolutism” about his own position. As it is, I couldn’t find Dennett himself stating these words. The only work by Dennett which Chalmers references (in the paper just mentioned) is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/dennett1996.pdf" href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/dennett1996.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">‘Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness’ </a>— and I couldn’t find it there either.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="9508"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">However, for the purpose of this essay, I still happily used the words “third-person absolutism” because they’re so convenient.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="f859"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">(2) </strong>The Canadian philosopher<strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"> </strong><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Churchland" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Churchland" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Paul Churchland</a> once wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/On_the_Contrary/9JGOmd66jGsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22by+introspection+the+coding+vectors+in+our+internal+axonal+pathways,+the+activation+patterns+across+salient+neural+populations,+and+myriad+other+things+besides.%22&pg=PA152&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/On_the_Contrary/9JGOmd66jGsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22by+introspection+the+coding+vectors+in+our+internal+axonal+pathways,+the+activation+patterns+across+salient+neural+populations,+and+myriad+other+things+besides.%22&pg=PA152&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the following</a>:</span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="9ec4"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“Given a deep and practiced familiarity with the developing idioms of cognitive neurobiology, we might learn to discriminate by introspection the coding vectors in our internal axonal pathways, the activation patterns across salient neural populations, and myriad other things besides.”</i></span></blockquote><p class="graf graf--p" name="2f85"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Of course, at present it would be (virtually?) impossible (even for a neuroscientist) to describe our (to use Churchland’s own words) “first-person” thoughts, feelings and beliefs in terms of “coding vectors in our internal axonal pathways”, “activation patters across salient neural populations”, etc. It may even be hard to <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">imagine</em> such a state of affairs at present.</span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="96db"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Yet Churchland wasn’t talking about the case as it is <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">today</em>. That said, he did explicitly<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22it+is+entirely+possible+for+a+person+or+culture+to+learn+and+use+some+other+framework+in+that+role%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Neurocomputational_Perspective/6jo18JL_DV8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22it+is+entirely+possible+for+a+person+or+culture+to+learn+and+use+some+other+framework+in+that+role%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> state that</a></span></p><blockquote class="graf graf--pullquote graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="df7c"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>“it is entirely possible for a person or culture to learn and use some other framework in that role”.</i></span></blockquote><p><br /></p><p> </p></div></div></section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0