In short
Galen Strawson argues for a physicalist (naturalist) worldview while also endorsing panpsychism/“psychism,” rejecting radical emergence. He claims consciousness is real and must be “wholly physical” in the sense that physics describes it structurally (e.g., pain as neural activity), though physics cannot explain the intrinsic “nature” of consciousness or any other reality.
Guest backgrounds
Galen Strawson is the episode’s guest; he is a philosopher known for work on consciousness and metaphysics, self-described as a physicalist and panpsychist. The host is Alex O’Connor.
Key claims
(1) Physics is “quiet” about intrinsic nature; it gives relations/equations, not quiddity. (2) Given physicalism + consciousness’s reality + no radical emergence, consciousness must be fundamental (“down at the bottom”). (3) “No mystery of consciousness” because the “hard problem” framing begs the question by assuming the base world is wholly non-conscious. (4) Consciousness doesn’t require complexity; it could be primitive experience.
Notable examples
heat/wetness as non-radical emergence; pain as neural “going on” (physics can describe the pain-event, not its intrinsic feel); evolution as explaining complex consciousness using primitive conscious stuff; “football team” as a case against simple clumping implying a new unified consciousness.
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Chapters
Tap a time to open that second in VOChallenges of Explaining Physicalism
1:06 to 2:24
Explore the difficulties in communicating the concept of physicalism.
“about this kind of stuff is that it's just so difficult to get people to agree with you.”
The Argument for Consciousness as Fundamental
2:24 to 4:35
Discover Strawson's argument for the physical nature of consciousness.
“Yeah, this is a really important point about physics that I talk about all the time, which is to say that it essentially describes relations, but it doesn't tell you about the nature of the things which are related.”
Critique of Emergent Properties
4:35 to 7:25
Examine the concept of emergence and its relation to consciousness.
“sense be right at the bottom of things, because we know it's here, we know it's physical, you couldn't get it out from something wholly and utterly non-conscious, so it must be in some way down at the bottom of things.”
Physics and the Nature of Consciousness
7:25 to 10:24
Discuss how physics relates to and describes consciousness.
“Life can be just ultimately seen as the motion of particles and electrochemical goings on.”
Consciousness Throughout the Universe
10:24 to 14:03
Understand the perspective that consciousness is intrinsic to all matter.
“its intrinsic nature, its intrinsic non-structural nature at all.”
Exploring Consciousness as Intrinsic to the Universe
14:03 to 15:16
The discussion centers on the intrinsic nature of consciousness and its relation to the universe.
“And I think it is the best completely general name for the stuff of the universe, and it behaves in certain ways.”
Challenging Radical Emergence and Consciousness
16:16 to 20:44
An in-depth examination of radical emergence and the foundational role of consciousness in reality.
“So this might sound like a trivial question, but considering how popular the view is, why is it impossible that radical emergence could obtain?”
Consciousness and Complexity: Misconceptions
20:44 to 24:45
Addressing common misconceptions about consciousness and its relationship with complexity.
“Well, I mean, some people approach this question by saying you've kind of got But you've kind of got three options.”
Rethinking Electrons and Consciousness Fields
24:45 to 28:00
A discussion on the nature of electrons, fields, and the concept of a consciousness field.
“And my best guess is that they're thinking about the nature of consciousness wrong in that I think the biggest mistake is people think consciousness requires complexity.”
Consciousness and Fields of Existence
28:22 to 30:21
Galen Strawson discusses the nature of consciousness, fields, and quantum physics.
“Well, to be clear, do you think there is something it is like to be an electron or a quark?”
Show all 20 chapters
Misunderstandings in Panpsychism
30:21 to 31:18
Strawson clarifies misconceptions surrounding panpsychism and idealism.
“No one should ever have so-called fingered panpsychism as to view that there are lots and little money.”
Foundations of Consciousness: Big vs Small
31:18 to 34:27
Exploring the conceptual differences between panpsychism and idealism.
“This is absolutely no necessary part of it.”
Consciousness in Different Forms
34:27 to 39:51
The discussion shifts to how consciousness manifests differently in various entities.
“Because for me, that seemed to be the difference in approach between the big great-mind idealist and the slightly more physicalist panpsychist.”
Understanding the Self and Consciousness
39:51 to 42:00
Strawson and the host delve into the nature of the self and its relation to consciousness.
“Well, it's just that some collocation, some clumpings of matter, I say matter because I don't think that matter means not conscious.”
Exploring the Concept of Self
42:00 to 45:16
Understanding the philosophical implications of the self and consciousness.
“Perhaps you could tell me what you think of the term self and how it's appropriately used best in philosophy.”
The Mystery of Consciousness
45:38 to 51:08
Discussing the nature of consciousness and its fundamental mystery.
“So your paper, we talked about this idea of the mystery of consciousness and how it's treated as special when maybe it's not.”
Consciousness and AI
51:08 to 56:03
Debating the relationship between consciousness and artificial intelligence.
“I don't think we're ever going to get any further with consciousness.”
The Nature of Conscious AI and Its Limitations
56:03 to 58:28
Explore the complexities and limitations in creating conscious AI as discussed by Galen Strawson.
“mythology of conscious AI where he says that the analogies that are drawn between brain functions and computer functions are just insufficient and that it just doesn't work like that.”
Conversations with Anil and Convergence of Ideas
58:28 to 59:26
Hear about the evolving discussion between Galen Strawson and Anil Seth on consciousness.
“Yeah, I actually, I spoke to Anil for the show.”
Reflections on the Podcast and Audience Reception
59:26 to 1:00:02
Galen Strawson reflects on the podcast's discussions and audience reception regarding consciousness.
“I think we're certainly converging to a considerable extent.”
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00This episode is brought to you by TaxAct. Don't do your taxes alone. Join TaxAct's National Admin Night. Admin nights are social gatherings for getting through your to-do list. So get ready for a night of fun, finding deductions, and filing taxes with TaxAct, where you can file your federal and state return for just$49 through April 8. Let's get together and get them over with. Visit taxact.com slash admin dash night for details. There's no one like you, and there never will be. From the producer of Bohemian Rhapsody, there are many legends, but there is only one. Michael, rated PG-13, in theatres April 24.
0:45Alex O'Connor:Galen Strawson, welcome to the show. Hello, good to be here. You are a physicalist, that is to say, what some people call a naturalist. you also describe yourself as a panpsychist or at least sort of aligning yourself with these terms in relatively specific ways. I want to get into that because I think my audience will find it interesting. But first, just before we started talking, you said that the trouble with speaking about this kind of stuff is that it's just so difficult to get people to agree with you. What do you think is the sort of unintuitive central claim that when you start trying to explain your views to people, they just switch off?
1:23One part of it is that There are a whole set of blockers, as I see it, and one of the blockers is just the normal meaning of the word physical in everyday life. People think that it actually carries as part of its meaning the idea that the physical is not intrinsically conscious, or is not in its fundamental nature conscious in any way at all. And that's the first thing, that it's very hard to get over. And so what I do, I mean, you must stop me at any time, but what I do is start by saying that you have to look at physics. And there's this great theme I have, which I call the silence of physics, which, if you look at physics, it doesn't make any claims at all about the intrinsic nature of the stuff whose structure it describes with equations.
2:15So the field should be understood to be open to the idea that there might be consciousness in some form, even at the very fundamental level. And there are many advantages in that view.
2:28Alex O'Connor:Yeah, this is a really important point about physics that I talk about all the time, which is to say that it essentially describes relations, but it doesn't tell you about the nature of the things which are related. And the phrase you use there, physics being quiet, seems to me like it might be borrowed from a certain Bertrand Russell, who was saying the same thing that you know physics is great it's not a it's not a bad thing about physics that it only describes relations between things it doesn't tell you about the nature or what russell called the quiddity of the of the real stuff but sometimes when i point this out to people they go they kind of say well yeah so what like physics doesn't claim to do much more than than uh sort of describing relations and if you want to say something like well physics can't tell us what the nature of something is.
3:18Alex O'Connor:So let's just plug consciousness in there. It seems like a bit of a consciousness of the gaps. Well, do you want me to give you the argument? Please. For why? Okay, so step one. We've already agreed that I want to call myself, or maybe we want to call ourselves, physicalists. Really what I mean by that is just that I think that physics has a description to give of everything in the universe. I'll call that physicalism, but that was that little interpolation wasn't without a purpose. So, physicalism in that sense. Second, consciousness is real. That is non-negotiable. It's evident. There are a few crazy people who deny that consciousness is real.
4:01So, we've got physicalism is true. One, two, consciousness is real. Now we have an interim conclusion. Consciousness is wholly physical. Must be, because everything's physical, right? Okay, now here's the most substantive step. So, we've got to number three here, consciousness is only physical. Number four, there is no such thing as radical or strong emergence. Step five, the emergence of consciousness from the wholly and utterly non-conscious would be a case of radical emergence. Therefore, consciousness must in some sense be right at the bottom of things, because we know it's here, we know it's physical, you couldn't get it out from something wholly and utterly non-conscious, so it must be in some way down at the bottom of things.
4:48What do I mean by radical emergence? That's not an easy question, but radical emergence would be the emergence of something out of something else, given which there was nothing about the base thing, given which you could explain the arising of the emerging thing. Is that good enough?
5:09Alex O'Connor:Yes. So we've got this view that everything that exists can be described by physics. There's no sort of extra stuff that physics can't somehow get a grasp on. That consciousness exists. Therefore, consciousness must be somehow explicable by physics. That's an interesting thing to say. But also, yeah, radical emergence. So if you have a substance or properties of a fundamental thing, then if you sort of mix that together and get this new type of stuff that just somehow magically comes out of it we'll call that radical emergence and some people like to say that well yeah i think that there's just the brain which is just atoms neurons firing and then consciousness just emerges out of that right and you might say well emergence of that kind doesn't exist and they'll point to examples they'll say well what about say temperature you know an individual atom isn't hot but if you put a bunch of them together you get this new thing called heat, or the wetness of water.
6:04Alex O'Connor:You know, a H2O molecule isn't wet, but water flows, those kinds of examples. What do you say to people who point to those as examples of radical emergence? I just say they're not radical. I mean, heat reduces to the motion of these little particles. Liquidity is a function of the molecular interaction laws. I think they're called the Van der Waals molecular interaction laws. they all reduce smoothly and nicely to only physical properties to do with shape size motion number blah blah blah so um i i fear that you're going to go on to ask me to say what about life are you going to do that i wasn't going to do that but people do that to me all the time well i should put my my colors on the mask and say that i am on your side here i do i do agree with you broadly about panpsychism.
6:55Alex O'Connor:I'm seeing this as an opportunity to place all the objections that I keep hearing to someone like yourself. Well, I'm going to say that as far as I'm concerned, life reduces smoothly. It's just a matter of electrochemistry. What I mean is life, once you've bracketed consciousness. Yes, right. And the people resist that already. That's another blocker. They think they've got a killer argument. And when I say, look, life reduces smoothly, they may just protest. But consciousness is a whole different order of things. Life can be just ultimately seen as the motion of particles and electrochemical goings on.
7:36That's my position.
7:38Alex O'Connor:Yeah, consciousness is obviously something very special, at least it seems that way. And I like to point out that in these other examples of emergence, the thing that people are really interested in as having emerged actually emerge as conscious experiences. So take temperature. You're quite right. Temperature is just the vibration of atoms. And if all you mean by temperature is just the motion of atoms, then nothing has emerged when you have a big object that's made of vibrating atoms. But people want to say, oh, but there's this extra thing. When I touch it, it feels hot. and that's what emerges without realizing that it emerges as a conscious experience similar to the an image on a screen emerging out of a computer system or even i believe like the the interesting part of the wetness of water all of the bits that that could be said to emerge only emerges phenomena you know exactly so when people talk about liquidity they they're actually thinking about something about the experience of it.
8:44Alex O'Connor:Because if they just mean the molecular makeup and motion of H2O molecules, then there's nothing you can't account for in terms of the basic physics. I'm interested in the fact that you describe yourself as a physicalist in that everything can be described by physics. Many people want to say that consciousness is something that physics can't account for, it can't grasp, I'm not quite sure what the right word is there, but what do you mean to say that it can be described? Well, yes, this is another issue. What I mean is, when you have a pain, that it is, in my view and perhaps also your view too, just a certain complicated synergy of neurons and neuromodulating thing readings.
9:39Physics cannot describe the feeling at all, but it can describe the pain because the pain just is that going on. That's all I mean. Physics can't give positively descriptions of the nature of the stuff at all. So it's actually almost ambiguous. When I say physics can describe everything, you're quite right. Many people misunderstand that in just the way that you worried about. They think I can describe the feeling of pain. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying there is a thing called a pain, which is a neural going on. Physics has a description of that. Neurophysiology has a description of that.
10:20So it falls within the ambit of physics. But physics can't describe its intrinsic nature, its intrinsic non-structural nature at all. It can't describe the intrinsic non-structural nature of anything. So there's ways to go from misunderstanding there. And I have to try to put it better. Tomorrow morning is knocking.
10:40Alex O'Connor:Stock your fridge now. How about a creamy mocha frappuccino drink? Or a sweet vanilla? Smooth caramel, maybe. Or a white chocolate mocha. Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits. Find Starbucks frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries. And this is important because it's not just, the claim isn't just that, well, physics can't describe the nature of consciousness. It's that physics can't describe the nature of anything, including therefore consciousness. Which is why, I mean, you've written a paper which essentially, I mean, the title is essentially that there is no mystery of consciousness.
11:15Alex O'Connor:That consciousness, whatever it is, is not a kind of mystery. But it's also, I mean, the full title, There Is No Mystery of Consciousness, and the demand for explanation begs the question. And you write about how, as soon as you say that consciousness is this special mystery, you're sort of assuming that the nature of the rest of the world, firstly, exists, that there is non-conscious stuff. And secondly, that it's somehow less mysterious. But of course, for most people, it does feel more mysterious that there's a conscious brain than that there is a rock on the road over there. But are you saying that's a bit of a sort of false distinction?
11:58It's extremely natural. What can I say? It's based in the character of our everyday experience. But when you go into physics and philosophy, it's something that you simply have to give up. But when I'm saying consciousness is... I think all animal consciousness or our consciousness does need an explanation, but I think the explanation is at hand, which is evolution did it. But evolution needs something to work with. And what I think it had to work with was already some kind of primitive conscious stuff, which I really can't say anything about. So that got worked up into interesting, remarkable consciousness.
12:43So that does need explanation. But the claim that the very existence of consciousness at all needs explanation does, I think, beg a question in the technical sense of beg a question. and that is it presupposes something that we are not right to presuppose.
13:01Alex O'Connor:So to say that consciousness or some kind of consciousness is present all the way down, as it were, do you mean to say that there's this sort of stuff that people call matter and that that matter is conscious, like has the property of consciousness? Or maybe there are foundational elements of the universe, including things like spin and mass and charge, and then consciousness? Or do you think that it all kind of breaks down to consciousness such that rather than foundational stuff having consciousness, foundational stuff kind of is consciousness? Yes, I think that's what economists call the least worst view, that is you go all out.
13:45So spin, mass, and charge are just really appearances of the intrinsic nature of consciousness. Actually, I mean, I like what Heisenberg says. Heisenberg says it's quite good to think of energy not just as a property, the property of being able to do work, which is how physicists think of it, to think of it as a substance. And I think it is the best completely general name for the stuff of the universe, and it behaves in certain ways. But what is its intrinsic nature. The proposal is that the simplest solution to the problem of consciousness is to say that it's already some consciousness of some kind, but it's extremely hard.
14:26I like what this man C.A. Strong says, a man who's been completely forgotten. He says, don't try and think about that. It is something that is intrinsically already of such a nature that consciousness can emerge in a non-radical, non-magic way. One of the points is that people think that it's sort of metaphysically insanely extravagant to suppose that there's consciousness everywhere. But there is just no good reason for thinking that. The form of the argument that I gave you is what's called an inference to the best explanation. Everything's physical. Here is consciousness. We could not get consciousness after something that was wholly and utterly non-conscious.
15:10So we must suppose that it's in some form already down there at the bottom. That's how it is.
15:16Alex O'Connor:We'll get back to the show in just a moment. But first, I want to tell you that today's episode is literally powered by today's sponsor, Huel. I didn't have very much time today before recording this episode, but luckily this small bottle is a complete meal. 400 calories, 35 grams of vegan protein, 26 vitamins and minerals, and it's even flavoured like chocolate. But it also comes in different flavors like vanilla and chocolate peanut butter and iced latte whatever suits your taste i like the black edition because it's got more protein in it but there's also the classic version or a light version it also comes in powdered form if you prefer to make it yourself and that comes in on average at under like three dollars per meal so it's high protein low sugar and low cost saving you both your time and your money just go to huel.com forward slash alex O 'Connor.
16:04Alex O'Connor:And if you use the code Alex O 'Connor at checkout as a new customer, you'll also get 15 % off. Seriously, these things are a lifesaver and I have been drinking them since long before they sponsored the show. And with that said, back to the show. So this might sound like a trivial question, but considering how popular the view is, why is it impossible that radical emergence could obtain? Why not just posit that you could end up with qualities or substances that aren't products of the individual parts? Well, there is no argument. It's just a core position. What you can say is that it's not appealed to anywhere else in science.
16:48I mean, what it really says is, I mean, I don't believe in God, but if you take God to be some kind of omniscient creature. It says, this would be unintelligible. The emergence of consciousness from the holy and utterly non-conscious would be unintelligible even to God. There would be nothing about the holy and utterly non-conscious stuff, given which you could see how or why consciousness could come out of it. And so it's fraught. In terms of good theories and what's theoretically extravagant or reasonable, it's terribly theoretically extravagant and unreasonable to ask to deposit radical emergence and i say really it's negative why do that you can just you don't need to you all you have to do is suppose that as it consciousness is in some manner already down there at the bottom of things well they say that's tremendously theoretically i say that's just prejudice that's just habit there's no intrinsic reason for thinking that and certainly physics isn't going to give you a reason.
17:52And then add a sort of general remark about, look, physics in the last century has just shown that everything is far more extraordinary than we can ever even hope to begin to understand. Why is, so, you know, wave-particle duality, why think that it isn't, it must be extraordinary in some way. So get over it.
18:13Alex O'Connor:Yeah, I've made this point a few times recently when I've been talking. I've been considering panpsychism and idealism with people, and they sort of raise their eyebrows to the back of their head. And I say, look, it's a bit offensive to me that if I want to know what an electron is, for example, what its nature is, I could ask some quantum physicists. and one of them might say, well, it's an abstract cloud of probability whose wave function collapses when it's observed. And everyone goes, okay, yeah, interesting. One other person says, oh, an electron is in fact in all of those different positions and a new branch of reality is created for every single possibility.
18:52Alex O'Connor:And there are trillions and trillions of multiverse realities being created every second. And people go, okay, yeah, that makes sense. And then someone comes along and says, I think there might be proto-conscious properties. And everyone goes, you have lost your mind, haven't you? What are you talking about? Exactly. In fact, I am talking to a number of people about this. Very committed. They choose radical emergence over the other option because they can't dare to give up the idea. So, I mean, I could, Stephen Pinker, we've been talking to him and Peter Contrary-Smith and I think Scott Aronson, who's colleague here.
19:30But I'm not sure about him yet.
19:33Alex O'Connor:But why the resistance? Why is it that people are willing to accept all kinds of brilliant and fascinating interpretations of quantum mechanics and the like, but are just so resistant to the idea that what we call consciousness might be present at the foundation of reality? Don't get me going on that. I have a huge file of quotations about why people find it difficult to give up the views that they hold. Do you think there's a philosophical reason, or is it just a sort of a personal bias? No, it's human nature. I mean, you know, I was sort of dragged kicking and screaming into this view. I had no—back in the 90s, I didn't want it particularly to happen, but I couldn't see any other way.
20:19Once you're committed to physicalism and the reality of consciousness, at all. What follows from that? And it turns out you've either got to put consciousness down there at the bottom in some way, or agree with radical emergence. And on most sort of accounts of good theory construction, putting consciousness down at the bottom is the better, simpler, most economical, elegant, parsimonious way of doing it.
20:48Alex O'Connor:Yes. Well, I mean, some people approach this question by saying you've kind of got But you've kind of got three options. One is what you call dualism, that there's mind stuff and then there's physical stuff. One is that there's only one type of stuff and it's all material. And one is there's only one type of stuff and it's mental. And given that you call yourself a physicalist panpsychist, I know you're a monist. You don't believe in dualism, but I'm not quite sure how you would characterize those last two options in terms of which you agree with. which were the, sorry, I didn't get them. So there's only, in opposition to dualism, you've got, there's one type of stuff, monism, and it's all like material, it's all the body, and the mind comes out of that.
21:37Alex O'Connor:Or you've got, there's only one type of stuff, and it's mental, and the material kind of comes out of that. Oh yes, I see the problem here. You're using material in a way that I wouldn't use it, because I would just say the mental is material. So I would list the options as dualism, which I think there has never been any good argument for it. So down to monism, and then two more positions, radical emergence or panpsychism or something. So that's my triple dualism, panpsychism, or radical emergence. You've got to choose between them. I know that you said before that as for what consciousness is, as for the real nature of the thing that's at the foundation of the universe, you kind of don't have much or anything to say about it.
22:29Alex O'Connor:yet in your paper you sort of say that to experience consciousness is just to know what it is and there's an intuitive force to that like everyone knows what consciousness is because you're experiencing it right now but is it guaranteed that just because we experience something we know it's nature you know like i might want to say that well like i can experience water right i can i can experience swimming through the ocean without knowing it's nature without knowing that it's hydrogen and oxygen like it's just experiencing consciousness enough to say that we know what it is, especially if when asked, we struggle to put it into words.
23:04Yeah, I mean, no, I would just say it's a special case. The having of it is the knowing of it. But I don't think we know everything there is to know about an event that is an event of a conscious experience. Because of course, I also think there's a lot of neural stuff going on. and nothing of that is given to me in the having of the feeling of pain or the usual taste of garlic or whatever you want. It's not given at all and I do have to think that that's part of the intrinsic nature so it's only partial. I'm just saying there is something that we know entirely as it is just in having it and then it's worth adding the point that here we know something about reality as it is in itself because there's a classic argument.
23:52You try to think that your current experience could be an appearance. Well, then the having of the appearance experience is already a case of an experience. So this is the great argument against the deniers of the existence of consciousness, the people who now call themselves illusionists, that it's just hopeless because the illusion is already an experience.
24:21Alex O'Connor:You've said in the past, semi-famously, I think, that what they call illusionism or eliminative materialism is not just the worst idea in philosophy, but perhaps the worst idea that any person has ever come up with in the history of mankind. Well, I think it's the silliest. But a good philosopher called Uriah Kriegel, who said he thought that he could think of one that was at least equally silly, which was just that nothing exists so i had to go on well okay so it's always interesting to think where listeners will be at that they'll either be right along with us saying this is great yeah this makes loads of sense or they're still thinking to themselves hold on can we just pause for a second conscious electrons it feels like we kind of brushed over that i asked you a moment ago why people struggle to so struggle to sort of get on board with this.
25:14Alex O'Connor:And my best guess is that they're thinking about the nature of consciousness wrong in that I think the biggest mistake is people think consciousness requires complexity. And the reason for that is because when you go looking for consciousness, people typically actually go looking for particular kinds of conscious activity, like memory and emotion and sentience, the ability to feel pain. And if something has those things, they go, oh, it must to be conscious, right? But you could be conscious without having any of those things. Consciousness is just experience. You don't have to have memory. You don't have to have a sense of self.
Read the full transcript
25:47Alex O'Connor:There could just be experience occurring. And when you strip away all of the complicated things that consciousness can sometimes do, you're actually left with something very simple. And if it's really something quite simple, it's easier to attribute it to an electron or something. That's where I think people are going wrong. But I suppose you would agree that when people say consciousness requires complexity. Well, that consciousness is the product of the most complex thing we know in the universe, which is the brain, that something's going sort of foundationally wrong there. Yes, that's right.
26:19First thing I would say is that I don't really believe in electrons in that kind of way. I think you have to accept the field theory approach, and they're just patterns of excitations in fields. So, I mean, it is true that I've given talks in the past and someone says, what's it like to be an electron? I understand why they do that, but we don't have… Yeah, so that's the first point. The second point is, yes, one has to think of it as something very primitive in some way. So I like to say that the existence of complicated consciousness like ours, or the eagle's eye or something, is just like the existence of the opposable thumb.
27:01An extraordinary piece of, as it were, engineering produces the opposable thumb. Or if you like, the eye considered just as a physical object. That's no more remarkable that extremely complicated consciousness has evolved than that opposable thumbs have evolved. K-pop demon hunters, Hajaboy's breakfast meal, and Huntrix meal have just dropped at McDonald's. They're calling this a battle for the fans. What do you say to that, Rumi? It's not a battle. So glad the Saja boys could take breakfast and give our meal the rest of the day. It is an honor to share. No, it's our honor. It is our larger honor.
27:41No, really. Stop. You can really feel the respect in this battle. Pick a meal to pick a side.
27:49Alex O'Connor:And participate in McDonald's while supplies last. Spring Fest is happening now at Lowe's. Keep the spotlight on your yard with Stay Green Premium 2-Cubic Foot Mulch. Five bags for$10. Plus, when you want more help indoors, get up to 40 % off select major appliances that help you supercharge your chores. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Valid at 422 while supplies last. Selection varies by location. See Lowe's.com for details. Mulch offer exclusive Alaskan Hawaii. Well, to be clear, do you think there is something it is like to be an electron or a quark? I don't think there are electrons, really.
28:31I think there are fields. I mean, we're now approaching another difficult area, because I think one has to think that there is, as it were, a consciousness field. And this attracts some people because they think now we're heading in the direction of a great big cosmic mind of some sort. Quite.
28:56And well, maybe, but not in any sense that has any religious implication. Mm-hmm.
29:04Alex O'Connor:I mean, because the way you describe it, like, electrons are excitations in a field and people talk about the sort of the the wave function of an electron but a lot of quantum physicists want to talk in terms of the wave function of the universe that there's one great big wave function and that all sort of physical matter is just an excitation in that field and that sounds like it lends itself quite nicely like in the same way it can be difficult to imagine, well, how do you get like matter out of what we call experience? How does experience take up space? But the physicists say that, you know, everything is foundationally waves.
29:45Alex O'Connor:And you could say, well, how do waves take up space? You know, it's a similar kind of problem. It's hard to wrap your head around. But it does seem to me that if you start talking about like one great big wave function and excitations in the wave function, that the image I'm getting in my head is of like, not panpsychism, but idealism. That is rather than lots of tiny little instantiations of consciousness that you put together to build big things. One big consciousness out of which you divvy up smaller parts. I'm afraid that this sounds like what I could see to be a great muddle and misunderstanding that's been introduced into the debate by Bernardo Kostrup.
30:28No one should ever have so-called fingered panpsychism as to view that there are lots and little money. Pan-psychism is a form of idealism, absolutely no question to me. Strong versions of idealism are equally forms of… I've actually dropped the pan now. I just like to say psychism. So this is just a complete mischaracterization of pan-psychism, so I don't know what to say. So trying to set up an opposition between idealism and pan-psychism is just a mistake.
31:02Alex O'Connor:So then what is unique about panpsychism as opposed to the long history of idealism that's existed for basically as long as philosophers have been thinking? What's unique about panpsychism if not that it's atomistic? No, absolutely not. This is absolutely no necessary part of it. The thing is, idealism is usually associated with Berkeley, and that is an utterly different view. It's a view that there is a mind and that all the objects in the world are just ideas in that mind. My panpsychism, which has nothing to do with little atoms of little subjects, as it were, sorry, I'm...
31:51Alex O'Connor:You were about to say your panpsychism is not like Barclays. First of all, the world is really out there, solid stuff. I say solid, but that triggers the wrong idea. But it's absurd. Solidity is just electric charge. Objects are almost, as we say, inaccurately, almost empty space. There's nothing there, is it where it's all extraordinary and diaphanous. Okay, better stop rhapsodizing about that.
32:30I don't know if I'm having trouble. I'm not having trouble, just forgetting, I'm not having trouble with reply.
32:37Alex O'Connor:Yeah, yeah. For Barclay, this idea that, as you say, there's this sort of great big mind and physical objects are ideas in that mind. Yeah, like when you say, we're picturing like the global wave function and physical matter as essentially excitations in that great big wave function. Is that not kind of a similar language? Well, it's real concrete stuff out there.
33:12Concrete stuff. You can bring them together, I think. You can form a conception of the Berkeley story, which it might begin to look like the story of a real universe out there, just a field with all these characteristics.
33:36Alex O'Connor:Maybe I can ask the question this way. I mean, you'll disagree with this characterization, and this is how I've seen it, but I'm glad to hear that this is probably untrue. But I've thought of it in terms of like, if you want to say that the universe is made out of consciousness, that consciousness is somehow foundational, that you can kind of go in two directions. You can either dig down to the bottom and say that whatever's down there has consciousness or is conscious, and that's like panpsychism. Or you can sort of go upwards and you can say, oh, everything sort of all put together is one great big mind, and that's idealism.
34:10Alex O'Connor:Now, I know that's probably not how you want to characterize those, but there is this question of like, which way we go to get to, let's say, the foundation. Do you picture the small stuff as building up the big stuff, or the small stuff as made out of big stuff? In other words, do we account for the cake in terms of its crumbs, or do we account for the crumbs in terms of the cake? Because for me, that seemed to be the difference in approach between the big great-mind idealist and the slightly more physicalist panpsychist. No, I think I reject the choice. No, I think I got thrown off because, see, it's happening again.
34:54Because there were things I wanted to say that I'd lost them and I couldn't get them back.
35:03I don't know. I mean, Barclay is by definition, he's an immaterialist. I mean, it's as if there's no real substance out there. There is no universe out there. To say that everything is just ideas in minds is naturally thought of as saying they're not really real at all, and that's completely complicated. Maybe I would think, I don't know much about what Kastrup has said, but I would think that we probably hold the same view. I don't know. but it's real sort of it's not just there's something about ideas in mind it's just ideas in mind so they're not really real and that's just completely wrong there is a universe it's out there it is a it is a field and actually on that that's one of the things i wanted to say which is that physics say there are sort of n fields certainly 17 fields or sometimes they say there's 25 fields but 15 of them are really stuffy and some of them are just mathematical So the really stuffy fields.
36:10But I don't think we should think that there are 15 of them. We have different takes. I think there's just one. And maybe this is shocking to people who think there's the electromagnetic field and the gravitation. There's just one, and it is extraordinarily complex. And we access it with all these sets of descriptions which have nice equations and so on. so that's one of the things I wanted to say and I do well you said
36:41Alex O'Connor:you're not sure what Kastrup would say I think when I spoke to Bernardo Kastrup I asked him about panpsychism and to me I agree with you that it sounds like we're sort of driving at the same thing at the very least but he said that I mean one of his biggest criticisms is of the scientific revolution he thinks that it's sort of totally upset the way we think about the world, that we've started to see, you know, kilograms and centimeters and extension as the foundational stuff and experience as the secondary stuff, even though experience came first and we get all of our knowledge of the world through experience and we've sort of done this reversal.
37:23Alex O'Connor:But he says, so he thinks of it in those terms, but he said to me that the problem with panpsychism is that they're holding on to this sort of scientistic idea of atomism, that the universe is divisible into tiny little marbles. That is just a terminological decision that he's made. That's how I felt. I get why it would be very useful to critique that sort of atomistic marble view of the world, but I think to say that that somehow discredits panpsychism is just to sort of make enemies for no reason. Yes. the word is hopeless really all these words become hopeless i mean i i just say psychism now yeah but so do you think of i mean it might sound like an odd question but the way you say you don't really believe in electrons as like definable entities let's say like how do you sort of picture how the universe is made up because i think most like physicalists who aren't psychists kind of do imagine like a bunch of tiny little dead marbles that you sort of stick together and it creates these complex structures but if we're talking about like excitations and fields and stuff like what like how can you help people to understand like how you're picturing what the universe is made out of like is it a bunch of vibrating waves is it like a thought in a mind is it like conscious like probability distributions like what are you what are you picturing um i'm sort of picturing a sort of wavy shimmering sheet if you ask me literally what i'm picturing um yeah i kind of agree that i sort of picture this great big well like this this wave function this great big wavy thing and there's little excitations but i think the question this might lead to and something we should definitely touch on is why it is i kind of want to talk about the combination problem for panpsychism but particularly yeah well i mean that goes because once you've got rid of the little bits but that's that's what i want to ask about is that like it even even if we accept that consciousness goes all the way down and that you know consciousness is everywhere and everything's made out of consciousness there's definitely something which i have and say a dog has that a table or a rock doesn't have and And I just wanted to ask you quite straightforwardly, what is that thing that I have that they don't?
39:51Well, it's just that some collocation, some clumpings of matter, I say matter because I don't think that matter means not conscious. It's conscious. Matter is energy, and the fundamental nature of energy is what it's like. Something like that. So there are some things of matter which are such that they give rise to, as it were, a large subject. But obviously tables don't. Of course, you get teased when you put forward panpsychism. Oh, you think the chair you're sitting on is conscious and so on. Don't think that for a moment. I'm sure that it takes certain sorts of very complicated electrochemical interactions for you to get big-scale consciousness.
40:38and some people then say well you can't think they go back to the little bits picture and they say which i'll accept for the purposes of argument just for now they say you can't think that lots of little bits can clump together and not make a um something conscious and i say well what about a football team you know when a football team goes into a hug or a huddle there are 11 subjects of consciousness but they don't suddenly make a big single one unless you're a bit mystical about sort of team spirit. So yeah, it's not the case that if you think that somehow the fundamental stuff is conscious, you have to think that every clumping of it together is.
41:15And I don't think at the moment it takes some very complicated electrochemistry for that to happen. So I see no difficulty there. But see, I suppose the problem is why, you're quite right, it doesn't,
41:28Alex O'Connor:just because everything's made of consciousness, it doesn't mean that everything, every object made consciousness is itself conscious, has a higher level consciousness of its own. But the question is why do some things, like brains, get that and other things don't? Is it just a matter of complexity? Do you even believe in the nature of individualized selves and sort of centers of consciousness? I thought I answered that. I mean, it's because you get this electromechanical complexity. So I don't think I have more to say than that. Perhaps you could tell me what you think of the term self and how it's appropriately used best in philosophy.
42:11Self. Wow, that's a big one. Sorry to spring that on you. Well, I sometimes sympathize with a man called Eric Olson who thinks we shouldn't use it at all. I think there is... Are you asking me to get into some of my more views about yourself which are not related to this issue?
42:35Alex O'Connor:or um well i'd be interested in insofar as i think that they can help people to get a get a bigger picture because because especially if people aren't super on board with panpsychism or maybe this is their first introduction to it that the first question that might come to mind is like well if there's all this consciousness everywhere then what is this sort of this sort of conscious gravity i feel inside of myself towards like you know it feels like there's a me that it's all happening to and helping to step outside of that can can allow people to see consciousness everywhere rather than just in their own heads well i mean it's it's what you would expect um given that evolution has come up with these complicated conscious organisms that move around on their own they need this as it were a place where the data incoming data about the environment which is useful to them in order to survive and so on gets unified and that that is what our experience of self is.
43:32There are indeed. We are a locus, Latin meaning a place. We are loci, places of consciousness. That's just a fact, and that is the foundation of all the experience of self. Funnily enough, here I rather favor some of the things Dan Dennett has said, although I disagree with him about many things. He thinks that it's in some sense a construct which is extraordinarily useful in helping us organize our experience, this sense of self. But, okay, that said, there's a very solid foundation for the idea that you are, in a sense, a single subject of spirit, which is that you are indeed a single body, and you move around as a single body.
44:15And so, I think you can explain the sense of self. That's dispensable.
44:24Alex O'Connor:Yeah, it's interesting to hear you refer to Dennett, because he is one of these illusionists that in other contexts you would find so difficult to agree with. But you think, I suppose, would you agree with him as an illusionist about the self, just not about consciousness, perhaps? Yes. Though I'm not denying the experience of being... One is indeed, one really is a single subject of experience. But I think that the plant is... I don't... And there is a continuing brain. I don't think there's a thing called a self which is a continuing thing independently of the existence of the brain. No, I agree.
45:06That's just quite a deal with anything I heard about religion and about Darwin. So it's just that we…
45:15Alex O'Connor:This episode is brought to you by Fandango. People say fans are too distracted these days. But the truth is, when a great movie hits the screen, you show up. You stay glued. Invested. Part of the story. Without fans like you, there'd be no cinema magic, no shared moments. So head to Fandango.com to get tickets, stream, or rent or buy top movies and series. Fandango loves fans.
45:43Alex O'Connor:So your paper, we talked about this idea of the mystery of consciousness and how it's treated as special when maybe it's not. the second sort of claim in the title of the paper is that essentially thinking that we need to explain consciousness begs an important question and i think what you mean there might have already come out in some of what we're saying but perhaps you can clarify precisely what you're getting at there yeah um you i don't think you can use begs the question anymore because you meant it in the original strict sense. What I meant was the challenge is this. Why do you think that the existence of consciousness needs explanation in a way that the existence of matter thought of as non-conscious doesn't need explanation?
46:33If you think that, you've already made a move, begged the question in an unwarranted way. So what I say there is, look, there is a great big mystery, and the big mystery is this. Why is there something rather than nothing? That is something we really don't know. But even though there is something, we shouldn't think that we know that it was originally just wholly non-conscious. That creates the mystery. If you somehow knew that everything was in its fundamental nature, non-conscious, then the arising of consciousness would be a mystery. But you've already blocked out what I think is the correct view in making the assumption that the basic stuff was wholly and utterly non-conscious.
47:29And you've done that. Oh, sorry.
47:32Alex O'Connor:And do you think that's a product of… Well, actually, I mean, we found some agreement with Dan. It's just terribly natural to think. Yeah, it feels that way, doesn't it? And I think we found some agreement with Dan Dennett. And I wonder if you can find some agreement with Bernardo Kastrup in thinking that, at the very least, the influence of what we call the scientific revolution, The idea that everything is best described with mathematics and this sort of mechanization of the universe, just sort of a way of picturing the universe in this way, that it works a bit like a machine. Do you think that's historically part of the reason why now people consider it not to be begging the question, that there is something, some extra task when it comes to consciousness?
48:20I think that's a really plausible psychological, sociological hypothesis. But we shouldn't, having said that, we shouldn't forget that these descriptions work. I mean, they are correct, they're true. You know, the inverse square laws and E equals MC squared and all that. But yes, they may have misset our thinking, certainly. me. That said, psychism is always alive in the Western tradition to an extraordinary extent. Yeah,
48:59Alex O'Connor:it's surprising how often it shows up. When I first started learning about this, I was amazed at the list of names and the number of people. I mean, all the way back to Thales, our pre-Socratic founder of philosophy. And you've got this idea that all things are full of gods, that he seemed to be obsessed with magnets and the fact that they seemed to have minds of their own all the way back from there to the modern day and up to Bertrand Russell and his monism. And now in the modern day with people such as yourself and Philip Goff and Thomas Nagel, It's been there the whole time, but for some reason, it's probably, of all the philosophical views I've ever entertained, the most polarizing in terms of my audience.
49:47Alex O'Connor:Half of my audience, I think, believe that I've lost my mind when I start talking about consciousness as fundamental reality. And half of them are like, this is really interesting. Oh, it's interesting that you're finally cottoning onto this. More so than talking about free will or God's existence or objective morality or anything. It's consciousness that really, really seems to rile people up. Yes, yes it does. It's just because of that habit and assumption. There are some great quotations about how unbearable people find radically new views. I do actually want to just interpolate that you're mentioning Russell, but Eddington was even better in a way on all this.
50:34So a shout out for Arthur Hiddink. There's a very good book called Panpsychism in the West. Well, I mean, it's very good just showing you how many people have held this use by David Scribina.
50:51Alex O'Connor:I wonder if you think, I know that you think that trying to explain consciousness begs the question, but it's undoubtable. Yeah, explain the very things of it, not explain super interesting consciousness like ours, which needs evolution. Yes. So explaining human consciousness, let's say, and all the work that's being done and trying to really get at the heart of what's going on when people have experiences and the nature of the self and all that kind of stuff. broadly you might think this is a bit of a false question and that will be an answer in itself but people often ask do you think that this study of human consciousness is a scientific question or a philosophical question maybe you think that's a distinction without a difference but to give an idea of where you're coming from for the the future of like development on on human consciousness do you think the biggest revolutions in thought are going to come from the physics department or the philosophy department?
51:48I don't think we're ever going to get any further with consciousness. Even if we really nail down the neural correlates of consciousness, even if the neuroscientists get that completely taped, because neuroscience and physics can't, that would be asking them to do something they can't do, which is to tell us substantive stuff about the intrinsic nature of the things whose structure they describe. So I think the study of consciousness, well, I mean, why not read Proust or Henry James?
52:30What do you think, what are you hoping to get out of? What do you mean by the study of consciousness exactly?
52:37Alex O'Connor:Well, I'm being careful how I word it here because I think for most people, the study of consciousness means the thing you say shouldn't be done, which is explaining the existence of consciousness as a special, unique thing. Maybe the first step in developing a better understanding is recognizing that's not a thoughtful question to ask. But I mean to say that I think people have this optimism that one day, at least the really scientifically minded folk have this image in their head that maybe a hundred years from now we'll all be sat around going like gosh can you believe that you know a hundred years ago we didn't we didn't even get this consciousness thing we hadn't we hadn't solved the problem we hadn't solved the hard problem we hadn't in in a position and be in a position where we're sort of no longer debating it anymore sort of like where we are with something like gravity where there's there's lots left to you know discover and uncover but we're pretty you know we're pretty settled on gravity everyone roughly knows what's going on there.
53:36Alex O'Connor:You know what I mean? People sort of have this optimism that we'll get to a similar position with consciousness. And I think the scientifically minded people say, yeah, totally, because it's the progress of science. And sometimes more philosophically minded people say, no, no, no, you don't understand that this is a unique problem. You want to say that it's not a unique problem, but maybe you also don't sort of give as much agency to the scientific method as those people I'm describing. Well, I think it's unique.
54:05given the way they're setting things up. One of the things interesting about what you've said is that people will say, 100 years ago, exactly the same sort of debate was going on about so-called vitalism. How is life possible? We did that. It reduced. Vitalism reduced to complicated physical goings on electrochemical. But there's nothing that can happen like that with consciousness. So I do think it's not going to change at all. And perhaps I should say something here about. I'm dreading the amount of flop that's going to be generated in the next two or three decades, both by machines and humans, I'm afraid, about consciousness.
54:47So here's what I think about. There are some people who associate the word consciousness with intelligence, and they think when an LLM or whatever it is, a large language module, gets smart enough, it must be getting conscious. And I think that's just a complete mistake. There's a consciousness, the best way to use the word is simply for it to mean by it the what it's likeness, the feeling. And there is no necessary connection between that and intelligence. I mean, you've already made the point that the fetus in the womb has feeling, but not yet intelligence. So there's a dissociation that way around, you can have consciousness without intelligence.
55:33But, and I say equally, you can have intelligence without consciousness at any level. So at no point, as the LLMs get more and more indistinguishable from human beings in terms of their intelligence, will there be any good reason to think that they're conscious.
55:52Alex O'Connor:Do you think that's, I mean, you said there'd be no good reason to think that they're conscious. Do you think that's, in principle, something that couldn't occur. Anil Seth, a neuroscientist friend of mine, just wrote a paper on the mythology of conscious AI where he says that the analogies that are drawn between brain functions and computer functions are just insufficient and that it just doesn't work like that. I wonder what your intuitions are on this nature of conscious AI. No, I agree with him about that. I'm just afraid that the bait is going to go on and on. It's just not going to... Some people are going to be committed to the idea that when it gets sufficiently intelligent, we must treat it as conscious.
56:38Oh, yeah, you asked about the in-principle point. I don't think that it's in-principle impossible for, as it were, a metal and silicon thingamy to be conscious. I don't want to rule that out. Oh, how could I, since I already think that the very stuff of reality is somehow consciousness involving. I just don't believe that any of the kind of complex puttings together of things that you'll get with machines will ever deliver what we need. And I think Anil thinks that too, Anil Seth.
57:05Alex O'Connor:Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'd recommend people read his article. I mean, he wants to sort of say that, you know, for example, he talks about a particular kind of neuron, which I think responds to metabolism. So if you were to actually replicate a brain with silicon, because there are neurons which rely on metabolism, you'd also have to then just replicate metabolism, which is not something silicon can really do. So the more and more accurately you sort of recreate this human brain, you'd actually just be making a human brain and creating neurons. Exactly. I mean, the difficulty here is that people talk about structural isomorphism.
57:44I think If you can make a thing that has the same structure as the human brain, you should get consciousness. But structure goes all the way down. And even if you'd somehow got a sort of computational, something that was computationally structurally the same, as it were, what they call the wetware, the actual biological stuff is also a matter of structure. You would never... The only way to get a complete structural duplication would be to have a baby, basically. I mean, to be another human being. So there's a lot of mistakes being made when they say, look, if it's structurally the same, it's going to be conscious because it's never going to be anywhere near structurally the same.
58:31Yeah, I actually, I spoke to Anil for the show.
58:35Alex O'Connor:It's not out yet at the time of recording, so you certainly won't have seen that, but we spoke in detail about this, and I think it's really interesting. And I hadn't really considered it before, the extent to which, you know, like you can keep, you can keep, if you look at what a neuron's made out of and you try to recreate a neuron with other material, well, how far do you dig down? Like if you were to take sort of, if you were to just have a bunch of protons and electrons and recreate a neuron, you wouldn't be creating a simulation of a neuron anymore. You'd just be creating a neuron. And if that's what you had to do to fully recreate consciousness, then maybe you just do need the biological aspect in order to get human consciousness.
59:13It's ultimately an empirical hypothesis, and I would bet that that was right. I mean, I've been corresponding with Anil for some time, and I think he was further away from me when we started than he is now. I think we're certainly converging to a considerable extent.
59:29Alex O'Connor:Yeah, I try to go back and forth and having panpsychists and idealists and then people like Anil and I had Sean Carroll on to talk about, you know, emergence is real and sort of non-psychic physicalism. I try to go back and forth as much as I can, but whatever the case, I'm hoping that people have found my conversation with you today interesting, if not informative. Some people just, as you say, they just don't want to hear it. And fair enough. Maybe they're right. Maybe we're crazy here. But at the very least, I hope it's given them something to chew on. Galen Strawson, thank you so much for your time today.
1:00:04Alex O'Connor:Okay. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just$15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. each. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan equivalent to$15 per month required intro rate first three months only then full price plan options available taxes and fees extra see full terms at mintmobile.com. Thanks.
From the publisher
Get Huel today with this exclusive offer for New Customers of 15% OFF with code alexoconnor at https://huel.com/alexoconnor (Minimum $50 purchase).For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: https://www.alexoconnor.com.Galen Strawson is a British analytic philosopher and literary critic who works primarily on philosophy of mind, metaphysics, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.TIMESTAMPS:00:00 - Is Radical Emergence Possible?08:15 - Can Physics Describe Consciousness?12:01 - Is Everything Made of Consciousness?18:34 - Why Are People Resistant to Panpsychism?21:19 - Can Experience Alone Tell Us What Consciousness Is?23:50 - Does Consciousness Require Complexity?29:03 - Panpsychism vs Idealism: What’s the Difference?36:08 - The Combination Problem40:03 - What is the “Self”?43:16 - Do We Even Need to Explain Consciousness?48:25 - Is Consciousness a Scientific or Philosophical Question?53:25 - Is It Possible for AI to Become Conscious?