WEBVTT - Does the Universe Have a Purpose? w/ Philip Goff 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:01.680 You could be in the matrix, right, I mean you 0:00:01.680 --> 0:00:04.240 could say, oh, well we can test our senses. Well, 0:00:04.280 --> 0:00:07.200 you can test your senses by using your census. It's 0:00:07.240 --> 0:00:11.440 so secular, you know, but some all knowledge is ultimately based, 0:00:11.520 --> 0:00:19.120 rooted in just a decision to trust experiences. 0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:23.520 Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast. Today, I'd like 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:26.360 to welcome Philip Goff to the show. Philip is a 0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:30.800 British author, philosopher and professor at Durham University whose research 0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:34.720 focuses on philosophy of mind and consciousness. In this episode, 0:00:34.800 --> 0:00:38.440 we discuss his latest book, Why the Purpose of the Universe. 0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:41.240 This is a very deep book and therefore this was 0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:44.240 a pretty deep discussion. In this episode, we discuss topics 0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:47.320 such as evidence for the existence of God, what physics 0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:49.760 says about the probability of there being a God, and 0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:52.320 whether the universe has a purpose. We also discuss the 0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.480 function of religion and society, and Philip's own views on 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.480 what form God would take based on the latest evidence. 0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:01.840 And in probably my part of the discussion, we discussed 0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:06.080 peak experiences and whether people are seeing reality most clearly 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:08.720 when they're in the throes of a peak experience. So 0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:11.679 this is a very juicy topic and a juicy episode. 0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:15.759 So without further ado, I'll bring you Philip Gough. Philip 0:01:15.920 --> 0:01:19.160 Golf is so exciting to welcome you to again to 0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:20.280 the Psychology Podcast. 0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:22.760 Hi, Scott, it's good to be here. It's been a while. 0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:25.640 It has been a while and sit in the intervening period. 0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:28.880 You've solved the mysteries of the universe. So well done. 0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:32.399 Yeah, yeah, all wrapped up now ready to retire. But 0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:35.360 you know, actually, Scott, you you want. Your podcast was 0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:38.720 one of the first I ever went on years ago. 0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:41.759 I thought I was incredibly nervous because I've never really 0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:45.000 been on a podcast before, and done a few more 0:01:45.040 --> 0:01:47.080 since then, so I'm a bit more used to it. 0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:51.279 But yeah, it's excited to come back on again. Well, 0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:54.760 it's great to have you back. Last time we discussed 0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.800 different theories of consciousness and I've just been absolutely riveted 0:01:58.840 --> 0:02:01.160 to see how you've agree with that and connecting that 0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:04.120 with religion. So we're going to jump into all this 0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:06.880 today what is the point of living? 0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:10.919 But start out with really you start with theasey questions? 0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:15.240 Yeah, well, I mean actually, because you know, my recent 0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:19.280 book modestly titled why the Purpose of the universe. You know, 0:02:19.400 --> 0:02:21.320 most of it is doing what I do is the 0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:26.520 sort of cold blooded scientific philosophical argument for something. But 0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:30.799 in the final chapter I do get to these big questions, right, 0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.040 what's the point and of it all? Why are we here? 0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:38.000 How does this affect human meaning in purpose? And I suppose, 0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:41.680 you know, quite generally, I take a sort of middleware. 0:02:41.680 --> 0:02:44.160 I'm always the middle way, the middle way guy. So 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:47.960 you know, you've got some extremes like the Christian philosopher 0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:51.080 William Lane Craig, who say, you know, if there's no God, 0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:54.040 if there's no point to the universe, it's all pointless. 0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:56.000 You know, we might as well might as well just 0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:58.040 kill each other if we want to. And then at 0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:00.760 the other extreme you've got the you know, a familiar 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:04.280 secular humanist position like there probably is no purpose to 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:07.320 the universe, but even if there is, it's kind of irrelevant. 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:09.280 You know, we make our own meaning and purpose. That's 0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:11.000 all there is to it. I guess I take a 0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:14.480 middle way point of view, where you know, if there's 0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:17.640 no God, if there's no purpose to the universe, we 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:21.079 can still live meaningful lives by doing things that are 0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:26.600 worth doing, you know, pursuing kindness, creativity, the pursuit of knowledge, 0:03:26.600 --> 0:03:30.240 and so on. But maybe if there is a purpose 0:03:30.280 --> 0:03:32.239 to the universe, if we've got some reason to take 0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:36.120 that seriously, maybe there's a hope of a greater purpose, 0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:38.080 or at least a greater sense of meaning and purpose 0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:41.440 in existence. And that's where I eventually get to in 0:03:41.480 --> 0:03:41.920 the book. 0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.120 Yeah, you really had me thinking a lot, because I 0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:48.840 teach a course on well being at Columbia, and I, 0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:51.760 you know, I teach about purpose, and and I have 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:56.440 this semester. I actually have a very very very religious 0:03:56.680 --> 0:04:00.160 Christian student who all of her reflections are tied to know. 0:04:00.960 --> 0:04:03.040 We had a thing last week which is like a 0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:05.160 reflection on what is your purpose? And the whole thing 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:09.680 was to serve God, you know. And and I feel like, 0:04:09.680 --> 0:04:11.880 after reading your book, I'm kind of viewing her reflection. 0:04:12.040 --> 0:04:15.600 Maybe need to give her a better grade, Come and 0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:18.920 think of it, because you know, I think, oh, there's 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:23.080 something really interesting there where like may like maybe there 0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:25.040 and you're going to explain this to me, but maybe 0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:30.560 there is actually a reasonably scientific support for some version 0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:34.479 of of the purpose I have is one that is 0:04:34.480 --> 0:04:36.719 in line with a cosmic purpose, even though I don't 0:04:36.720 --> 0:04:37.920 know exactly what it is yet. 0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:44.360 Yeah, I guess the position I've reached, after struggling back 0:04:44.360 --> 0:04:48.599 and forth for many years, is that both sides of 0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:51.640 this never ending debate have something right and something wrong. 0:04:51.720 --> 0:04:53.240 You know, I think so many people in the West 0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:57.160 think I they have to believe in the very traditional 0:04:57.400 --> 0:05:01.120 idea of God as all knowing or for perfectly good, 0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:04.159 or you're a secular atheist, it's like, who sign you on, 0:05:04.320 --> 0:05:06.680 Richard Dawkins or the Pope, you know, make your mind up. 0:05:07.160 --> 0:05:11.480 And yeah, I've just come to think that both sides 0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:15.159 have something right and something wrong. With the traditional belief 0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:18.440 in God. They have the challenge of explaining why there's 0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.520 so much suffering. Why would a loving God who can 0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:25.800 do anything allow so much suffering in the world. But 0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:29.800 I think there are also things traditional atheism struggles to explain, 0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:33.880 most notably the fine tuning of physics for life, the 0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:39.640 surprising discovery of recent decades that for life to be possible, 0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.360 certain numbers in physics had to fall in a certain, 0:05:43.400 --> 0:05:46.560 incredibly narrow range, in such a way that, on the 0:05:46.560 --> 0:05:49.760 face of it, it's incredibly improbable that a universe like 0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:52.680 ours would get the right numbers for life just by chance. 0:05:53.320 --> 0:05:56.680 So you know, humans get stuck in this dichotomy, don't they. 0:05:56.760 --> 0:06:00.200 You know, are you a sort of US capitalist or 0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.719 a Soviet communist? You know, are you a do you 0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:05.839 believe in the soul? Or is it just electrochemical signaling? 0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:10.200 And we ignore the wealth of middle ground options. That's 0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:12.120 what I'm really trying to trying to do in the book. 0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:14.200 I'm not saying, you know, this is the answer, this 0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:18.679 is the one true faith. I'm just exploring the wealth 0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:21.240 of interesting positions between God and atheism. 0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:24.240 Look, I hear you, and I would say, from the 0:06:24.279 --> 0:06:28.960 perspective an of an atheist, maybe a militant atheist, your 0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:33.080 position is not in the middle. It's interesting because you 0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:36.599 had to admit like to to you know, Dawkins was 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:39.279 Richard Dawkins was listening to you right now and hearing 0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:41.720 your position as in the middle. He'd be like, no, no, no, 0:06:42.000 --> 0:06:45.800 my like, look, you don't have you don't have evidence. 0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:48.440 Now you're you're but you're I understand that you're putting 0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:50.480 forward the fine tuning of physics. Is that that's your 0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:51.320 main data point? 0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:53.640 Is that really? So? 0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:55.960 Like tell people like UT's impact it all more, that 0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:58.120 seems like a pretty big shining that. I don't think 0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:01.159 a lot of people are on the street really have 0:07:01.640 --> 0:07:04.120 they din't get them women and the memo for that yet? Now, 0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:07.160 when was this discovering? Who are the mean physicists who described? 0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:09.320 Is it really like a consensus now in physics? 0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:14.280 Sure? Well, just it's interesting you say that from your 0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.000 atheist perspective, it's it's not a middle way position. Actually 0:07:17.120 --> 0:07:23.760 might just to con say sorry, sorry, from perspective, do 0:07:23.760 --> 0:07:28.000 you know. Actually, in terms of my response from friends 0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:32.560 and colleagues, I found most of my atheist friends have said, oh, 0:07:32.560 --> 0:07:35.360 this is just non standard atheism, whereas most of my 0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:38.840 religious friends have said this is just nonstandard theism. So 0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:43.400 probably probably in the middle is is is the right 0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:47.360 way to put it. But yeah, the fine tuning and 0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:49.520 physics for life, I mean, just to be clear, there's 0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:53.520 a lot of misunderstanding here. People think if you say 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.360 physics is fine tuned for life, that means oh, there's 0:07:56.360 --> 0:07:59.800 a fine tuna, and okay, that that would be controversial 0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:03.840 that some kind of designer. What it actually means, and 0:08:03.880 --> 0:08:07.840 this is a familiar term in physics, is just that 0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.160 for life to be possible these numbers had to fall 0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:16.560 in a certain very narrow range. I mean, let's take 0:08:16.560 --> 0:08:19.800 an example, Put an example on the table. One of 0:08:19.840 --> 0:08:24.560 the most discussed cases is the cosmological constant that measures 0:08:24.600 --> 0:08:29.640 the force that propels the accelerating expansion of the universe. 0:08:29.760 --> 0:08:29.840 Right. 0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:33.520 We discovered in nineteen ninety eight. I remember actually as 0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:37.640 a young kid interested in you know, black holes and 0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:41.599 so on. We discovered that our universe is not only expanding, 0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:47.679 but it's accelerating in its expansion. And when you calculate 0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:52.080 what the number is that governs that the force we 0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.840 call it dark energy, actually the postulated force that's propelling 0:08:55.880 --> 0:09:00.280 that expansion, it turns out that if that force just 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:04.080 a little bit stronger, everything would have shot apart so 0:09:04.320 --> 0:09:08.440 quickly that no two particles would have ever met, you know, 0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:11.800 you wouldn't have had stars, planets, any kind of structural complexity, 0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:15.240 Whereas if it was a bit weaker, it wouldn't have 0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:18.640 counteracted gravity, and so everything would have collapsed back on 0:09:18.679 --> 0:09:21.319 itself as split second after the Big Bang. So the 0:09:21.400 --> 0:09:24.520 life to be possible, that number to be kind of 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.480 like Goldilocks porridge, right, not too big, not too small, 0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:30.240 kind of exactly right. Or not. You know, it's not 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:33.040 one number that's that's needed, but it's in a quite 0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:38.720 narrow range. So yeah, I mean, this is fairly uncontroversial physics. 0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:41.199 Just at what I've just said, And do you find 0:09:41.240 --> 0:09:43.760 it surprising not many people know about it. I mean 0:09:43.800 --> 0:09:47.600 I tweeted a big list of very big, high profile 0:09:47.760 --> 0:09:52.840 physicists to accept this. I mean, Stephen Hawking, did Nobel 0:09:52.960 --> 0:09:58.439 Prize winners. Ah, my mind's gone blank on names just now, 0:09:58.800 --> 0:10:03.480 Leonards Suskind and you know, it's it's, it's, it's there's 0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:08.000 always some controversy, but it's it's a fairly broadly accepted fact, 0:10:08.000 --> 0:10:10.520 at least about our current theories. Right, of course, the 0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:13.320 current theories may change. They may change that you'll get 0:10:13.480 --> 0:10:15.480 less fine tuning. They may change that you'll get more 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:18.560 fine tuning. But I think, you know, we've got to 0:10:18.600 --> 0:10:22.000 work with the evidence we currently have. What follows from 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:24.680 that is another question. But just let me let me 0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:29.080 say I am inclined honestly to think we're kind of 0:10:29.520 --> 0:10:32.520 sort of in denial about this as a society. I 0:10:32.840 --> 0:10:36.240 think it's a little bit like when we first started 0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:38.640 getting evidence that we were in the center of the universe, 0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:41.960 and people struggled to accept that, sorry, that we weren't. 0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:44.679 What did I say, We started getting evidence that we 0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:52.199 weren't another member, Sorry Freudian slipped there, and people struggle 0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:54.280 to accept that because it didn't fit with the picture 0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:57.000 of the universe they got so used to. And nowadays 0:10:57.000 --> 0:10:59.200 we scoff at those people and think, oh, yeah, stupid 0:10:59.240 --> 0:11:02.000 religious people. What they just follow the evidence. But I 0:11:02.040 --> 0:11:07.840 think every generation absorbs a worldview that they can't see beyond. 0:11:08.280 --> 0:11:10.439 And I think we've got so I think, in our 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:14.640 normal standard way of thinking about evidence, I think and 0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:17.359 we can maybe debate this. I think this is evidence 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:21.280 for some kind of goal directedness towards life in the 0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:24.600 early universe. And I think culturally we've just got so 0:11:24.800 --> 0:11:27.920 used to the idea, no, that's not what science says, 0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:30.800 that we're just I think we're just ignoring where the 0:11:30.840 --> 0:11:34.520 evidence is most straightforwardly pointing. I think future historians looking 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:37.200 back will think, why did they just ignore this for 0:11:37.240 --> 0:11:37.680 so long? 0:11:38.080 --> 0:11:41.400 So that's that's that's where I'm or well, maybe there's 0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:44.120 is a god somewhere just thinking that, you know, like, 0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:45.200 why are they still ignoring? 0:11:45.360 --> 0:11:48.560 They still ignoring me? I don't know. 0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:50.880 I guess. I guess a lot of people do pray 0:11:50.960 --> 0:11:53.640 to God. But it's just it's it's it's it is 0:11:53.720 --> 0:11:57.520 so interesting because you're you're you're taking you're away coming 0:11:57.559 --> 0:12:00.880 in as a non physicist and you're thinking this through. 0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:02.719 You're like, let's they actually really think this through in 0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:05.480 a way in like a human lot, like what implications 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:07.680 for humans? You know, And it's so cool, Like I 0:12:07.679 --> 0:12:10.720 feel like physicists should really appreciate you. Do they do 0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:13.119 they appreciate you? Do you do you hang out with physicists? 0:12:13.120 --> 0:12:16.920 I well, yeah, increasingly, I work with a lot of physicists. 0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:21.200 I'm currently working with physicist Graham White at University of Southampton. 0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:23.400 We're going to get in a few physicists and philosophers 0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:26.320 together to put forward a paper on some of the 0:12:26.440 --> 0:12:31.079 recent philosophical discussions in this area. Yeah. I had a 0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:35.720 conference in Durham last week where Luke Barnes and Jeraint 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:38.880 Lewis came to cosmologists to have written I think one 0:12:38.880 --> 0:12:41.400 of the best recent books on the evidence of fine tuning, 0:12:41.400 --> 0:12:44.680 It's got a Fortunate Universe. And it's interesting that one 0:12:44.720 --> 0:12:47.959 of them, Luke, but is a Christian and takes this 0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:52.559 in a in a theistic direction, whereas Geraint, his co writer, 0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:56.160 is an atheist that thinks the multiverse is the best explanation. 0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:58.520 But so most of the book is just the evidence 0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:01.160 and then they have a sort of dialogue at the end. 0:13:02.120 --> 0:13:04.200 But yeah, what I find a lot of though, to 0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:09.160 be honest, I was talking to parently one of my 0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:12.440 kids recently, who's a very good friend at a physicist, 0:13:12.440 --> 0:13:14.920 and what I find a lot is people say things 0:13:15.040 --> 0:13:17.800 like I don't find many people saying that this is 0:13:17.800 --> 0:13:20.200 not true about the fine tuning. I get that on Twitter, 0:13:20.240 --> 0:13:24.120 but I don't get that from physicists. What they say is, oh, well, 0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:27.440 you know, what they say is what the evidence is 0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:31.440 going to change? Right? You know, physics isn't complete, And 0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:34.800 I think, well, yeah, physics is not complete. We haven't 0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:38.840 bought general relativity and quantum mechanics together. Maybe when we 0:13:38.880 --> 0:13:42.440 do that, this will go away, but it's equally possible 0:13:42.480 --> 0:13:45.080 there'll be more fine tuning. And I think all you 0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:47.839 can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have. 0:13:48.240 --> 0:13:53.160 It's the definition of a bias to say, you know, well, 0:13:53.160 --> 0:13:55.240 I'm going to ignore the evidences we currently have it 0:13:55.280 --> 0:13:58.439 and wait until evidence comes along that benefits the theory 0:13:58.440 --> 0:14:00.719 I like, and I honestly think that what's going on. 0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:03.960 Just one more thing. I think we're very well trained 0:14:04.440 --> 0:14:07.360 in intellectual circles in the West to be very alert 0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:10.880 to religious bias, bias from religious upbringing, you know, or 0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:13.360 you just believe that because you want to believe in 0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:16.680 God orthing. But I think we're not well trained to 0:14:16.720 --> 0:14:20.640 be alert to bias from a certain secular worldview. And 0:14:20.720 --> 0:14:23.680 I find like that's a much more powerful influence on me. 0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.840 You know, I feel I do feel silly talking about 0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:28.480 this stuff in front of my colleagues, you know, I 0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:31.000 really it took me a long time to build up 0:14:31.040 --> 0:14:34.480 the confidence. So close childhood friend of mine John says, Oh, 0:14:34.520 --> 0:14:37.040 it's just your Catholic upbringing. I mean, you know, my 0:14:37.080 --> 0:14:40.320 Catholic up bringing that and rejected when I was fortyected it. Yeah, 0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:42.800 I feel like that has hardly any influence over me, 0:14:43.160 --> 0:14:47.120 whereas the secular world, you know, worldview a swim in 0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:52.280 that you know, cosmic purpose is just ridiculous, that has 0:14:52.400 --> 0:14:56.800 much you know, that's really hard to counter. So so anyway, look, 0:14:56.800 --> 0:14:58.840 I mean that's not an argument, but I think what 0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:00.640 I want to press is the we need to be 0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:03.120 alert to biases on both sides. 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:08.200 Okay, so I agree, I definitely agree that. So let's 0:15:08.280 --> 0:15:13.280 further unpack your argument why science points to a cosmic purpose. 0:15:14.600 --> 0:15:17.080 The second part of your argument is a little more 0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:21.920 of my wheelhouse. The fact that you argue there's psychophysical harmony, 0:15:22.520 --> 0:15:27.640 the improbable alignment between consciousness and behavior that is presupposed 0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:30.640 in any evolutionary story of the character of our conscious experience. 0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:32.960 Can you unpack that one a little more for me, 0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:34.840 because I can maybe wrap my head a little more 0:15:34.920 --> 0:15:35.280 run out. 0:15:36.600 --> 0:15:41.320 Yeah, this, now, this is much harder to convey, I'll 0:15:41.360 --> 0:15:44.800 be honest about that. You know, with the find with 0:15:44.880 --> 0:15:47.760 the fine tuning, it's easy to get people to see 0:15:47.760 --> 0:15:50.200 the issue, even if they think it's bullshit or something. 0:15:50.440 --> 0:15:53.360 But with this it is much harder. And well, the 0:15:53.400 --> 0:15:56.360 way I try to set it up in a paper 0:15:56.600 --> 0:16:00.200 I've got in all an article in Scientific American is 0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:04.920 to think about the way David Chalmers famously set up 0:16:04.920 --> 0:16:09.360 the hard problem of consciousness. Right. He distinguishes the easy 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.240 problems so called, and the hard problems. So the easy 0:16:13.240 --> 0:16:18.520 problems are kind of to do with behavior or information processing. 0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:21.960 What stuff does, and science knows how to deal with that. 0:16:22.000 --> 0:16:26.160 You postulate a mechanism to explain the behavior. But Charmers 0:16:26.200 --> 0:16:30.880 thinks those kind of things always leave open the hard problem. 0:16:30.920 --> 0:16:35.320 Why is there experience? Why does it feel like something 0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:39.480 to be in this brain state? So that whole approach 0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:41.960 to consciousness that, by the way, I'm very much on 0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:47.440 the side of distinguishes sort of behavior from experience and 0:16:47.480 --> 0:16:50.240 says there's, of course these go together in the real world, 0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:55.360 but there's at least a conceptual separation now. But once 0:16:55.400 --> 0:16:57.720 you do that, what I think Charmer's never realized is, 0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:01.680 once you do that, you've got another problem. Why do 0:17:01.800 --> 0:17:05.719 they fit together so well? If experience and behavior are 0:17:05.720 --> 0:17:10.200 sort of logically separable, why do they fit together so well? 0:17:10.200 --> 0:17:13.439 I mean, I mean the most obvious examples are like 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:16.000 pleasure and pain. Like when you when something hurts, you 0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:19.280 avoid it, And that's kind of appropriate, right, That's like, 0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:22.679 if something feels bad, that gives you a reason to 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:26.119 avoid it. If something feels good, you tend to go 0:17:26.240 --> 0:17:28.840 for it, and and that makes sense as well. But 0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:33.640 if if these two things, if behavior and consciousness are separable, 0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:37.320 like why would they go together in this way? That 0:17:37.440 --> 0:17:40.600 kind of makes sense and that's just one example. I mean, 0:17:40.880 --> 0:17:43.520 in general, they fit together. I mean the final the 0:17:43.560 --> 0:17:46.040 Kushler thing I'll say is and this is what the 0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:50.280 first response is, Well, it's evolution, right, And I don't 0:17:50.440 --> 0:17:55.119 think evolution does it because I mean, look, I believe 0:17:55.119 --> 0:17:57.720 in evolution. I think we evolve the consciousness we have. 0:17:58.720 --> 0:18:03.760 But I think any evil lutionary explanation of our consciousness 0:18:03.760 --> 0:18:09.120 presupposes what I'm talking about, presupposes that behavior and consciousness 0:18:09.160 --> 0:18:11.679 go together in a kind of rationally appropriate way. Like 0:18:12.160 --> 0:18:15.680 natural selection is only going to make me feel pain 0:18:15.720 --> 0:18:20.080 when my body's damaged if I'm gonna respond appropriately and 0:18:20.119 --> 0:18:22.399 avoid getting my body damaged. It's only going to make 0:18:22.440 --> 0:18:25.200 me feel pleasure when I eat if I'm going to 0:18:25.280 --> 0:18:29.840 respond appropriately and you know et and and I'm gonna survive. Well, 0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:32.159 so we do have this deep question. I mean, you 0:18:32.160 --> 0:18:34.840 could say, you could say, well, the whole thing's just 0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:38.800 charmers is just wrong. Consciousness just is a behavioral thing. 0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:41.480 That's that's one option we could maybe talk about. But 0:18:41.600 --> 0:18:43.639 as soon as you say, now, there is this separation, 0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:47.040 There is this deep difficulty of why they why they 0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:51.119 fit together so well? And I think it's it's massively 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:53.840 under exp it doesn't lead you straight to cosmic purpose. 0:18:53.880 --> 0:18:56.840 I've got to like a broad, complicated discussion, but there's 0:18:56.840 --> 0:19:02.160 something deep that the heart the problem. Consciousness is much 0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:04.440 deeper than we've that we've currently envisaged. 0:19:04.480 --> 0:19:12.359 I think, yeah, this is really complex stuff, and I 0:19:12.400 --> 0:19:16.080 don't want to lose our audience, but this is really, really, 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:17.920 this is a really deep stuff. 0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:20.440 Could I put it in a slightly different way that 0:19:20.440 --> 0:19:23.920 that might be a bit more accessible? That it's kind 0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:25.879 of how I start the chapter. Actually, this chapter of 0:19:25.920 --> 0:19:28.199 the book, chapter three, does have a warning on it 0:19:28.200 --> 0:19:31.160 that it's a bit more complicated. But here's a simpler point, Right, 0:19:31.520 --> 0:19:34.280 there's a deep mystery of why consciousness evolved at all 0:19:35.160 --> 0:19:41.160 because natural selection just cares about behavior, right, just cares 0:19:41.200 --> 0:19:44.439 about that that's what matters for survival. But we've found 0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:48.960 with AI now right, that you can have incredibly complex 0:19:49.000 --> 0:19:53.359 behavior and incredibly complex information processing with no kind of 0:19:53.359 --> 0:19:56.680 inner life at all. So why did natural selection just 0:19:56.760 --> 0:20:02.040 make us kind of complicated survival mechanisms? Right? That can 0:20:03.320 --> 0:20:07.119 you know, mechanically track features of the environment and initiate 0:20:08.000 --> 0:20:11.000 survival conducive behavior without having any kind of inner life 0:20:11.040 --> 0:20:14.600 at all? I think there's a deep mystery of why 0:20:14.720 --> 0:20:19.800 natural selection needed to give us an inner life. And again, 0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:24.560 the step to cosmic purpose is a it is is 0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:28.119 a few steps down the line. But this, look, I 0:20:28.280 --> 0:20:30.680 suppose I can put it this way. I think there 0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:35.960 are deep problems, deep challenges with underappreciated in our current 0:20:36.920 --> 0:20:41.560 scientific picture of things consciousness, fine tuning, and these these 0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:43.280 problems to do with how we make sense of the 0:20:43.320 --> 0:20:47.119 evolution of consciousness. And one of them, don't try and 0:20:47.160 --> 0:20:49.160 do the book is just really wrestle with them quite deeply. 0:20:49.480 --> 0:20:51.879 Oh, I know what you're doing, and I am in 0:20:52.000 --> 0:20:52.560 awe of you. 0:20:54.200 --> 0:20:56.000 For doing it. Thank you. 0:20:56.480 --> 0:20:59.560 Yeah. Yeah, there's just the very various things that I'm 0:20:59.560 --> 0:21:02.159 trying to see how they line up. So help me 0:21:02.200 --> 0:21:05.280 line up something. I mean, you you make this case 0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:10.640 that there is you use the word goddish. I think 0:21:10.640 --> 0:21:13.239 it's funny, but you're like, you know, there is this, 0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:15.800 Like these are the two arguments that there might be 0:21:15.880 --> 0:21:18.520 that there probably is the existence of something goddish, and 0:21:18.560 --> 0:21:22.040 the fine tuning physics for life and the psycho physical harmony, 0:21:22.720 --> 0:21:25.080 and then you have a whole argument why the omni 0:21:25.119 --> 0:21:28.159 god probably doesn't exist. But I guess this helped me 0:21:28.240 --> 0:21:31.639 swear this away. I would have thought maybe I might 0:21:31.720 --> 0:21:34.240 understand it correctly. But since you you're like the guy 0:21:34.320 --> 0:21:37.200 when it comes to the theory of pant psychism, right, 0:21:37.640 --> 0:21:43.639 isn't panpsychism literally an argument for an omnipresent consciousness? And 0:21:43.840 --> 0:21:46.560 if there like something fundamental to the universe, and if 0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:49.680 there is an omnipresent wouldn't wouldn't that actually be some 0:21:49.840 --> 0:21:52.640 suggestion there might be an omniprison God. I guess I'm 0:21:52.680 --> 0:21:56.479 not understanding how the world how you come up with 0:21:56.680 --> 0:21:59.200 there probably isn't an omnipresent God. Considering you're you're you're 0:21:59.280 --> 0:22:05.040 mister pan psychism, that question absolutely that you would have 0:22:05.080 --> 0:22:06.200 come across the other way. 0:22:06.600 --> 0:22:10.480 Well, actually, you know, there is people might be interested 0:22:10.520 --> 0:22:13.639 that there is a big split in the ever growing 0:22:13.800 --> 0:22:17.960 pant psychist research community. You know, so exciting that fifteen 0:22:18.040 --> 0:22:21.120 years ago nobody was punt psychist, you know, and it's 0:22:21.200 --> 0:22:24.399 just been this growing third way position. That's quite exciting. 0:22:24.600 --> 0:22:28.960 But there is a split I think maybe reminiscent of 0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:33.040 the split in the early psychoanalytic community between followers of 0:22:33.119 --> 0:22:35.640 Young and followers of Freud. You know, followers of Young 0:22:35.880 --> 0:22:39.480 took it in a spiritual direction with the collective unconscious 0:22:39.560 --> 0:22:44.440 and spiritual archetypes, whereas people who like Freud thought, you know, oh, 0:22:44.480 --> 0:22:47.639 this is religious, superstitious nonsense. We need serious science. And 0:22:48.400 --> 0:22:52.960 likewise with pant psychism. Some people, I mean David Chalmers 0:22:52.960 --> 0:22:55.680