Consciousness Beyond Materialism: A New Framework for Mind & Reality | Elly Vintiadis - Mind-Body Solution

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:08):
Thank you so much for joining me, Ellie.
Welcome to Mind Body Solution. Thank you for having me.
Well, it's a pleasure to host you today.
This is an exciting time becauseit's Round 3 for our Mind at
Large project, our special series for this channel, and
you're a key contributor to thisproject as well.
Just by the way, I wanted to actually make sure that we
mentioned a call for submission.So there's abstract submissions

(00:29):
that we'd like people to presentto us and it will be part of our
project, part of publication. So a call to action for everyone
who wants to be part of this. Submit your submissions within
before January. I will put a link to that below.
So try and join us and hope we see you in Exeter in April.
It's going to be from the 15th to the 17th.

(00:50):
So yeah, I just thought I'd. Put that, and it would
particularly appreciate submissions from graduate
students and early careers researchers.
We want you to be part of this. Definitely and I will put links
to that and all the submission guidelines below.
So if you need further details, just click the link below.
Eddie, with that being said, this project is is there to

(01:11):
explore consciousness and its role in reality, from
consciousness to cosmos to connection.
How do you define mind at lodge for you?
Is it a metaphysical thesis, is it a methodological stance, or
something else? Yes, well, I must admit that my
instincts are very cautious whenit comes to metaphysics.

(01:33):
I'm a bit of a offense sitter, so I don't share necessarily the
intuitions or ideas that many ofthe other people in the group
do. So what?
But what I do share with them isthe idea, I think that we all
share this idea that materialismand physicalism, which is the

(01:56):
main game in town both in science and in philosophy, is a
very narrow way of thinking about consciousness.
And it doesn't capture the richness of our mental life, but
it's also doesn't do justice to how consciousness is connected
to an organism's being in the world.

(02:17):
So, and I think this is what themind at large is project is
trying to capture. We want to bring, we want to get
people to start thinking beyond a materialist framework and it
attain ideas that maybe that go beyond it, maybe that it's

(02:37):
something more, maybe that it's something other, maybe that
can't be captured by this framework, which is the working
framework for the past three centuries or so.
And I think it's it's important you you just touched on it.
But for anyone who's watching and trying to get involved with

(02:58):
this, it's great to have SomeoneLike You on the podcast with
this project as well because of the very fact that your views
are very different from any of the other past guests that I've
had. Even so, when it comes to Peter,
even though of course you guys share similar views, ultimately
it's a great space for people tonot just jump on the anti
materialism bandwagon, but rather show diverse opinions and

(03:20):
differences within the field of philosophy and show how many of
them actually collaborate well together and show the
contradictions and the irregularities in other
philosophies. So I think it's great that you
share a slightly different view.Do you want to perhaps go into
some of that? So we've had pizza on the show.
I mean, it's very important thatwe're not trying to impose a
viewpoint on people. I think.

(03:41):
I think our emphasis is on dialogue.
We thought, let's bring scientists and philosophers
together to start discussing alternatives because
alternatives do exist. Of course, it's not that we're
we're just bringing, they'll be the first people to bring them
up. But it's always on the margins
of materialism. I mean, if, if you think of

(04:03):
Rutherford 125 years ago, he said 100 and 100 years ago he
said this physics and the, and there is stamp collecting,
that's it. And this is it.
This is the idea. And it continues to hold strong,
though we do have, there are other views increasingly,

(04:24):
there's a lot of evidences accumulating.
So we thought, let's bring thesepeople together.
Let's think beyond materialism. Maybe there will be some cross
fertilization. And we also, I think felt all of
us. But in order to start this
discussion, because it's it's going to be 3 conferences, so we

(04:47):
thought that we should start thediscussion with how we got here.
So we need to talk about the philosophy of science, the
sociology of science, the sociology of philosophy and
academia in general. And this is something that is
not included in most people's education and very much so in
ours too. And I think Quil Cookler in the

(05:10):
paper once said she wrote that the aim of philosophy or, or one
of the aims of philosophy, I don't remember exactly, is to
denaturalize ideas that seem obvious to us.
Because the ideas that everybodyshares around us that seem
obvious are the ones that go under the radar, the ones that
we don't really critically discuss.

(05:30):
So I think that what we're trying to do, if I had to sum it
up, is that we're trying to denaturalize materialism.
And if you understand how we gotthe first step is understanding
how we got there. Because if you understand how we
got there, then you will understand that maybe it's not
so obvious, it's not so innocent, and it's not neutral
really. Yeah, I couldn't have said it

(05:51):
better myself. We've laid out a bit of a
framework Mind at Large project.Now everyone's familiar once
again. Let's start and dissect this and
go into what we're talking about.
When it comes to the philosophy,the history, sorry, of
philosophy of mind, particularly, it has been
dominated by a materialist view for quite some time.
I mean, prior to that we had dualism.
We've had various alternative theories.

(06:12):
But when you think of the mind body problem and you think of
consciousness studies, what typeof philosophical story would you
tell someone if you were giving us a, a brief historical lecture
right now? What, what, how would you
condense that into a short summary?
It's like, it's quite a tough one.
You mean philosophically or scientifically?

(06:32):
Philosophically more more so. So most people start with
Descartes. They start with the general
dualism. If you were to tell us the
story, maybe from a mind at large perspective, maybe, let's
say to open the doors of thinking beyond the general
materials framework, how would you tell that story?
Well, philosophy of course doesn't start with the card, but

(06:54):
I suppose that the the, the mindbody problem, the problem of
consciousness as we have it today begins with the cards and
really begins, I think it reallybegins with the beginning of
physics as we know it today. But the card of course was a

(07:14):
jewellist. And then for many different
social forces, some of which youdiscussed, I think with Matt and
Peter, materialism substitute, it's not so much that
materialism substituted dualism,is that dualism just became an

(07:42):
extremely difficult position to defend for some people given
certain assumptions. And and then, but there were
always other ideas, there was idealism.
Idealism is, I think easier to defend than materialism, almost.

(08:03):
But then again, for different social forces, because of the
leaps that of science, because of the decade of the brain when
it comes to to consciousness study to even I suppose
psychiatry, materialism came to dominate and this begin but but,

(08:24):
but this begins, I think in withGalileo, with this in the 17.
Well, it doesn't really begin with Galileo, but Galileo we, we
can identify Galileo as a major force there because Galileo
comes along and says, look, and this is at the beginning of the
scientific revolution. He says, look, I don't know how

(08:45):
to handle phenomenal states, consciousness, Quailia, whatever
you want to call them. So let's put them aside.
Let's let's build science and let's define it as what studies
quantifiable phenomena, you know, He says the book of nature
is written in mathematical language.
So phenomenal qualities are put aside.

(09:09):
They're not really out there. They are not part of the
physical world. They're part of something inside
your head, which is the move, which is not really new, of
course, in the history of human thinking.
I was thinking of Plato today, because Plato also had Plato had
the problem of change. He couldn't understand how
change happens. So he says, OK, change is not

(09:32):
real, Reality isn't changing, and it's up there.
It's up the forms and the ideas,and change is only the realm of
appearances. So this is a similar move to
Galileo. So Galileo takes phenomenal
states, takes consciousness out of science and then we build
this fantastic science, which isvery good that manipulating the

(09:53):
world. But of course if you are, if you
start asking questions about science, you realise that
manipulation is one thing, understanding is quite another.
So now we have, so science did all these things.
So then science started looking at the brain and there we had
the problem because we have a lot of information about the

(10:15):
brain. We have a lot of information
about psychological States and how human, you know, the how
human act and react. But we have no idea how to
connect those things, which is not surprising since, you know,
they've been separated at the birth, let's say.

(10:37):
And so we have all these other positions.
So one one way it says that theydon't fit together.
They just don't. So we have duelism.
Another way is to say they are the same thing.
You're just seeing them from a different perspective.
That would be some form of materialism or another kind of

(10:57):
monism. Or you can say we you don't have
to put consciousness back into the physical world because
consciousness was already there all the time.
Which is forms of punsykism I suppose.
I'm not sure I answered your your question at all.
No, it's great because you you sort of giving us a nice map of

(11:20):
the arena of mind, let's say, and the way these ideas sort of
evolved over time, which is great and I think.
And now we have 360 theories of consciousness.
That's what Robert Lawrence Kuhnsaid.
And he says we 350320I don't know well, and he says we're
missing one, which is of course true.

(11:41):
We're missing one. But my feeling is, and, and this
is more of a feeling than something else, that the answer
is not going to come in the framework we currently have.
We we need a conceptual shift, which I don't think we have
right now. Yeah.
And and science, I think, and philosophy have to work together

(12:07):
in certain ways, and we can. Yeah.
So, yeah, it's it's true. A paradigm shift is sort of
needed for this. I mean, you the reason why I was
so excited to chat to you is because our work's quite
similar. When I did my visitation, they
did work in within mental healthand psychiatry as well.
What do you think our models within psychiatry are lacking?
That's just not allowing us to approach consciousness in the
way we we want to. Well, it depends which model you

(12:31):
are talking about. But well, for instance, a
reductive model like the biomedical model of mental
disorders, which is not always, it's not always and not
necessarily reductive, but let'ssay it is for the time being, I

(12:53):
think it's looking at the wrong place.
It's too narrow. You have to look back because I
think, I think you cannot understand consciousness without
understanding or mental disorders without understanding
the whole Organism in relation to it's his environment.

(13:16):
So if you just look at the brain, I can understand how some
people say, but it must be the brain that produces
consciousness and we have to look there.
But when it comes to mental disorders, things are much more
complicated, I think. And then of course, and of

(13:38):
course, if you let's let's take one thing at a time.
If we're talking about consciousness, you have to look
at the different forms of consciousness.
Generally when we when we discuss consciousness, when we
research consciousness, we are thinking of typical

(13:58):
consciousness and typical consciousness is sober adult
human experience. I mean, there are people who
study other kinds of consciousness, but generally
that's the default. But there's a huge variation
when it comes to mental phenomena.
In psychiatry, we see meant how mental capacities fail and come

(14:18):
apart. We see that mental capacities
function differently in different beings.
We see that consciousness differs from time to time in the
same person and depending on what's happening around them,
you know, and then you think of psychedelic states.

(14:39):
So this is how I got into this because I'm interested in our
obligations to animals. And then I started thinking
about animals minds. This is not my area of research,
but I'm very interested in it. And then I was looking in
psychedelic therapy. And in both cases we have
consciousness which is atypical.And if you don't look at these

(15:01):
kinds of consciousness and you're looking only at human
consciousness, then you can be prone to make, I think, many
mistakes There's. Also the fact that, I mean, I
remember while working as a psychiatric medical officer in
psychiatry, there's many psychiatrists who have never
heard of things like phenomenological
psychopathology. They don't know who Karlie

(15:23):
Aspers is. They don't know really Ponti.
They don't know all these other thinkers who, who have, who have
given different foundational core features and benefits
within psychiatry that have justnot been explored enough values
based practice and just other alternative ways of looking at
people and understanding the nature of reality.
We, we tend to summarize it intothe bias psychosocial approach,

(15:44):
which and, and often people feelvery excited about saying that,
but it really is very limited still.
There's so many more factors beyond that.
Is there anything about that youwant to touch on Well?
Well, in psychiatry, you, you are, you are trained as doctors
really, right? So I suppose that makes sense
because maybe someone who studies psychology instead of

(16:05):
psychiatry would be more educated on these things, you
know? Now, that's, that's very true.
Fair enough. That's a good point.
But I still think that when practicing medicine, you still
have to take the human experience as a whole.
You mean you can't just get caught up in the in the biology
of the being while ignoring the social, psychological, embodied

(16:29):
and active all the other elements that we're trying to
explore within this project as well?
Because I think it will fundamentally shift the way
medicine is practiced as well. Only for the better is what I
believe. Absolutely.
I suppose that the problem, the fear is that it, it, it becomes
very complex and some people might hear that it therefore
becomes intractable. But of course, the other side of

(16:51):
the coin is that if it does become very complex, which of
course it is very complex in thecase of psychiatry, there are,
it gives you more ways to intervene and, and, and try and
solve the problem instead of like, you know, popping a pill
or have 45 minute sessions whereyou can discuss your, I don't

(17:13):
know, your father. Yeah.
There's there's also there's there's multi factor pills,
there's elements of overworked, under underpaid, not enough
staff, so many other factors to explore, which which does tend
to make it a lot more difficult because it's easier to than just
give a Med fix the biology and and then they're off to have a
momentary fix. Yes.

(17:34):
And, and of course, I think to be fair to the psychiatrist, I,
I, I am pretty sure that it's not only because they believe
that mental disorders are physical that they give people
pills. And I think people want pills.
I think it's it's much easier, first of all, to take a pill
than to actually sit down and dothe work or change your
lifestyle or really go through years of trying to figure things

(17:58):
out. No, I completely agree with
that. Anyway, let's, let's, let's move
back into this, this area of consciousness and then we'll
slowly bridge it back into psychiatry.
How do you if when you think of consciousness, do you think of
it as something that's fundamental, emergent,
constructed, universal? How do you define it?
Interesting. If I were, I'm not quite sure,

(18:31):
but I don't know it's. A good answer to be.
Honest, sometimes I am pulled bythe idea that it's something
fundamental, but then I don't understand how that can be.
I not that I understand how matter can be fundamental.
I have the same problem. I'm I'm pulled by both

(18:55):
consciousness and the material world as fundamental.
I tend to think if you push me alot, I might think it could be
emergent, an emergent property of certain complex structures at

(19:15):
the time. In so far I suppose organic, but
I do not exclude the possibilitythat.
Would and, and within that emergence, would you say then it
would be more organic within thebrain or would it be something
else? So electromagnetic information,
let's say like semi field theory.
You've got someone like John JoeMcFadden, you've got other

(19:36):
people who explore beyond the brain, but still very much part
of the brain. How do you draw that
distinction? Where do you line?
Yeah, it's a it's a tough one. So what's some of the so that
comes into more? I wouldn't, I wouldn't say it's
quantum mechanics, but someone like John Joe McFadden would
talk about semi field theory, consciousness as in

(19:58):
electromagnetic information field.
So it's not necessary the actualbrain's software, but rather the
emitting outer activity off the actual software.
So there's an extra layer, let'ssay within the material world,
though let's let's not forget that's still a very much
materialist theory. However, it's not actually just
the brain. I might be butchering that
theory, by the way. Does that at least sound

(20:28):
plausible? Look, it sounds more plausible
than saying that it's a propertyof the brain.
I that's that's, I cannot see how that could be.
Yes. I mean, first of all, why would
the brain be conscious? A brain, right?
An Organism needs to be conscious, and the Organism

(20:52):
needs to be conscious, I think to in order to interact with the
world it found itself into. So yes, the idea that other
things in the body have a say inconsciousness.
I think this is absolutely right, but I can't evaluate the
theory because I'm it's this thing that we, there's something

(21:12):
missing that that will allow us to make sense of all these
theories. Because many theories have many
parts that make sense. And there are many theories that
seem plausible. But for something to be
plausible and for something to be true is very different.
And I think we, I mean, we thinkabout materialism, we don't even

(21:38):
know what matter is. And I'm not thinking in terms of
intrinsic nature. I think that looking for an
intrinsic nature might be the wrong way to go.
And, and I also think that maybematter could be just it's
effect. I think I realise this is very
controversial thing to say. Maybe there's nothing more to

(21:58):
matter than that, but that even that doesn't solve our problems.
I mean, how does matter? What does it mean for something
to have charge other than how itinteracts?
What we don't understand the relationships of things, the
relations of physical forces, let's say.

(22:22):
So before we know, before we canmake sense of all these
theories, I would need a better understanding of the concept
involved. And I think it's it's important
for us to to get that information and just try and
gather as much as possible because as we just touched on
briefly, it fundamentally changes the way we will treat

(22:43):
people, patience, humanity, and the way we move forward.
So there's so many implications to theories of consciousness
that it's a very important thingto discuss.
Yes, and also how we how, how wedeal with each other every day.
I think that that's also very important, yes.
Much of your work intersects with psychiatry, as we just

(23:04):
said, let's say within the brain, within the brain model
of, of the way we sort of understand organisms, we, we
tend to think, okay, there's something going wrong in the
prefrontal cortex. This is the type of medication I
want to give. This is what I want you to do.
Let's change that ontology. Let's say that there's something
deeper here, something much moreinterconnected, more complex.
Like we said earlier, you can't just give it a quick fix pull.

(23:25):
How should we then change our metaphysics of mind to adapt and
accommodate this changed ontology?
I wouldn't start with ontology and then going to what we
understand of of mental disorders.
I think we should go the other way around.
So, so first of all, what seems to be the case, right?

(23:53):
The, the, when you, when you read about mental disorders in
the popular press, they say, ah,you know, I don't know, anxiety,
it's a chemical imbalance and addiction is just a disease.
It's nothing more and so on. Now, I think, let me, let me
start by that and then I'll, I think I will get to your

(24:13):
question sideways. I, I, I think this is wrong
because first of all, a mental disorder, you we have a case of
a mental disorder when a person systematically interacts with
the world in a problematic way. Now what is problematic about

(24:38):
that? What's problematic about that,
and I'm following here Matthew Broome and Lisa Portolotti, is
that they've the behaviour, the interaction violates certain
norms. Now these could be epistemic
norms, so let's say norms of rationality that you form
beliefs based on not enough evidence, moral norms.

(25:06):
You go around killing people or hurting people or social norms,
I don't know, you rarely wash. You go to the theatre and shout
things at the people who are performing plays.
So if you think about it, that'show we identify mental disorders
and that's how we we tried to solve them.

(25:29):
I mean, if I gave you a brain and I said look, if I gave you a
brain scan, I said look. So and so is happening
schizophrenia, but there is absolutely nothing in the
behaviour of the person that's changed in the experience of the
person that just changed. Suppose he's absolutely normal

(25:50):
in the statistical sense of normal.
Would you say that the person ishas schizophrenia, suffering
from schizophrenia? No, that's not the level we
identify that. So of course people say yes, but
there's something. There's something there in the
brain. Undoubtedly the things happen in

(26:11):
the brain. Things happen in the brain as we
speak. Things happen.
The brain changes every time youlearn something new.
And there will be changes in thebrain when a person is suffering
over from anxiety, has OCD, schizophrenia, whatever you

(26:31):
want. But that's not the level at
which the pathology lies becausein fact just a variation, even a
variation shared by many people doesn't necessarily amount to
pathology. So let's take this as a first.
Given that this is not the levelat which the pathology is

(26:53):
identified, let's take a question of evidence, which is
also important that we really don't have any clinically useful
biomarkers for mental disorders.OK.
We have, we have some biomarkersfor Alzheimer's disease, but I'm
not sure that that counts as psycho psychiatric disorder.

(27:14):
And we have a fully penetrant and dominant gene for
Huntington's disease. But again, I'm not sure that
those count as psychiatric disorders because the primary
effect of these of these conditions is not mental.

(27:36):
The mental is secondary. The effect, the mental effect is
secondary. The primary effect is physical.
And we also see that for some reason, which who knows why
therapy works. Therapy works to some extent in
some disorders. Sometimes it works along with

(27:57):
other things with medication, but therapy seems to work or and
when I say to work, I mean to help people because that's as
doctors, psychiatrists want to understand certain things, but
they also want to help people and it would be useless if we
didn't help people. In metaphysical terms, this is a

(28:19):
suggestion for something called mental causation or downward
causation, right? It goes from the both, from the
mental to the physical. This is something which of
course physicalist would not accept.
Now let's go to metaphysics. As we have materialism in the

(28:40):
philosophy of mind and physicalism the philosophy of
mind, we have substance metaphysics.
Now substance metaphysics. Well, the the idea of a
substance is a very difficult idea to print down and many
people have very different ideas.
But when we talk they didn't substitute.

(29:01):
The physics is that the world ismade-up of substances and the
basic what is a substance is a substance is an entity that has
a natural unity whose propertiesthat persist through changes in
its properties and is to some extent independent of other

(29:21):
things. So the concept of independent
unity, stability and endurance are basic.
So I started would say that an Organism is a substance.
The card would say that we have a mental substance and a
physical substance. A physical substance is extended
and the mental substance is a thinks and this is the the

(29:50):
metaphysical substratum that hasdominated western thinking.
We start with Aristotle's essentialism, then in the 17th
century we have atomism, and then we gradually go move
towards a constant attempt to reduce things to their
constituents, parts and relationand substance metaphysics.

(30:12):
The basis of substance of the physics is stasis, the lack of
change in systems. Remember Plato couldn't explain
change. OK, it comes full circus.
Now there's an there's an alternative to substance
metaphysics and that is process metaphysics.
So process metaphysics offers a completely different way of

(30:35):
understanding the world. So the world app is not made of
substances, it's not made of things.
It's made of processes, intertwining processes that
exist at different time scale. And of course you'll say, but
what do you mean? I see things, I see objects, I
see flowers and mountains and the the desks.

(30:56):
And so a process metaphysics would say, yes, of course, but
the stability you experience in the world is the result of
processes in dynamic interaction.
And some processes work in a very large time scale and some
processes work in a very short time scale.
So a mountain is a process stabilize at the very high time

(31:20):
scale, a human Organism A relatively high scale as opposed
to cell renewal in our bodies orthe life cycle of a bat shorter
time frames. Now, if you see why am I saying
all this, If you see the world as being made-up of processes,

(31:45):
there are certain things that become more difficult to
sustain. Now a substance with the physics
doesn't necessarily lead to materialism, doesn't necessarily
lead to physicalism reductionism.
No, it doesn't entail them. But it's easy to get into that
kind of mode of thought when youthink in terms of processes.

(32:08):
There are certain things that donot come so natural.
So one of the things that doesn't come naturally is
reductionism. Another thing that doesn't come
naturally is essentialism. And this relates to a question
of mental disorders because a process, think of a river, it's
like water flowing in a river. Processes don't have hard

(32:30):
boundaries. They flow into each other, they
intertwine. 1 sustains the other.
You know, the the heart is sustained by the parts, but the
heart also within an Organism sustain the parts that make it
up. So, so we don't really have a
hierarchical level of reality. The world is not made-up in

(32:51):
neatly neat levels. And this is something that we
see constantly in human thinking.
We people like boxes because we can manage boxes, but when we
let go of our assumptions and welook at the world, boxes are are
really there. So if you don't have levels, the

(33:13):
the idea in physicalism and materialism in many ways is that
there are levels of reality and the higher levels are determined
completely by the lower levels. If you don't have these levels,
then the reductionist way of thinking becomes very difficult
to sustain. There are no higher levels,
higher and lower levels. It's all interconnected.

(33:37):
And the other thing with, of course, with the physics is that
it allows for different kinds ofcausation.
It's not only from the bottom up, it's not only from the small
to the big. It allows for downward
causation, mental causation, mere logical organizational
causation. Because you see that you start

(33:58):
thinking the world as a place ofmiddle sized stable objects and
you start seeing a world made-upof processes or which are in
dynamic and continuous interaction and and causation
becomes more directional. Yeah, so.

(34:18):
Beautiful, beautifully put. And I think it's what I find
very fascinating is how when yousee things from that lens, a lot
of people tend to think of that.Even process philosophy, I see a
lot of scientists when they talkabout it, seeing it as a as, as
unscientific. But if you think about it, it's
a lot more it, it takes reductionism to another level in

(34:39):
a sense, because you've reduced everything.
So even those categories that you've labeled, you've actually
taken it further to actually break those down into more
processes and even more details.So it's actually even more of a
great scientific tool in that sense.
Yes. I mean, I don't think
reductionism is itself bad in itself, and I don't think that

(35:00):
reductive explanation should disappear even in the original
sense of of going to the bottom.I just think we these shouldn't
exhaust all explanations. And it did.
Yeah, it's, it's still a great tool and it helps us to picture
things and imagine what's going on.
But ultimately it's still something you need to think
about it. There's something beyond this

(35:20):
that's still occurring and it's a process we need to, we're yet
to, we're yet to understand perhaps.
But the reason why I asked that first question was to actually
get to the next one, which was, is the concept of a disorder
itself a metaphysical commitment, something about how
the world actually is? Or is it essentially normative
no matter what bringing out the tough ones today?

(35:44):
Sorry. It's just I'm super excited to
talk to someone who's worked in the same in the same.
Yes, because, but you. But you're asking a person who
very really has huge difficulty committing to an answer with
certainty. I think that's still a great way

(36:05):
to approach the world because itshows how much you're putting
thought into every answer and then that you're not solely
fixated on a on a conclusion because you're open to actually
exploring these ideas. So I think that's great.
Yes, but I still have to give ananswer.
Yeah, that's true. So the question is whether it's
something completely normative or whether.

(36:28):
Whether the whether a disorder is itself a metaphysical
commitment, or whether it's essentially normative.
Look, it depends on. I think this goes back to the
question of what is fundamental in the world.
If matter is fundamental, indeed, I would say that then

(36:50):
it's more of a normative commitment.
But if there are other kind of fundamental entities or whatever
you want to call them, they're not really entities, yes.
Then I'm not sure that it would be purely normative, a way of
not answering the question. But it it depends what the

(37:12):
metaphysical structure of the world is, and I'm not sure what
the metaphysical structure of the world is.
Well, in at the moment when we look at cognitive sciences, so
there's a growing emphasis on things like predictive
processing. You've got models of mind as the
as a model become quite a big hypothesis that everyone's

(37:32):
working with. How compatible is this view with
your own philosophical view of consciousness?
I think the the predictive processing does get close.
It seems to get things close enough because first of all, it
moves away from the idea that consciousness is a window to the

(37:55):
world. And I think that's probably
wrong. As you see, everything is
probably or possibly or yes, butthe modeling predictive
processing is a best guess model.
So it's a model that is constantly being updated based

(38:18):
on sensory input. So if you have a glitch, you fix
it. Now it remains, I think it
remains, it still remains too internalist for me.
It's still too much in the brain.
I I think like most theories, I think there are some good

(38:38):
intuitions. And then when you try to
formulate the theory itself, youlose part of the plausibility.
But you're still trying to pin down what I think consciousness
is and. Look, I mean, ultimately that's
always, that's always at the forefront of any conversation on
this show. That's always at the forefront

(39:00):
where we'll try to get it out ofyou before the end of the
episode. It's I think I'll get I'll get
somewhere towards the end. You just have to keep pushing it
and hopefully you get a catch atsome point.
Given your interest, Ellie, in meta philosophy, what is
philosophy actually doing when it studies consciousness?

(39:20):
Would you say it's discovering truths, building conceptual
models, critiquing science, or something more existential
perhaps? I think a bit of everything, a
bit of all, all of the above. Philosophers who study
consciousness, of course try to understand the phenomenon.

(39:42):
Usually they, they try to understand it as a natural
phenomenon. Not necessarily, not always, but
yes. And part of the, and I think you
can do philosophy at least with,on, on certain subjects without
being informed about science andin discussion with what science

(40:04):
says. And when a philosopher does
that, invariably I think they will criticise the conceptual
foundations of science. So I think the work is very much
conceptual. But here we we are opening the
question of what the relation between science and philosophy
is, which I can talk about. But yeah.

(40:27):
I think, yeah, go go into it if you'd like.
OK, because I think this is something that's very often
passed over very superficially, but it it's important to get
certain anxiety. So, OK, so science and
philosophy have the same aim andthe same.
And the aim is of course to understand the world and

(40:47):
ourselves and the. And I suppose we should also say
that the word science comes fromthe word.
I don't know if I'm saying this correctly in the Latin word
scampia, which means knowledge, and the the Latin verb skira,
which is to know. So Collingwood gives a good

(41:10):
definition. He says, look, when the when we
talk about science, what we are talking about is a body of
orderly or systematic thinking about a specific subject matter.
And this is the way we would themeaning of science that we we
use when we say philosophy is a science or mathematics is a

(41:31):
science or history is a science.It's a bit of an honorific term.
So any because in this sense, any discipline that we pursue
rigorously and with certain methodological standards is
science. But then when we contrast
philosophy with science and whenwe ask what the relationship is,
that's not the kind of science we're talking about.

(41:53):
We're talking about something much narrower.
We're talking about the empirical sciences.
So and it's Collingwood interestingly says that this is
a slang use of the word science.So it's a set of disciplines
that follows certain methods that cover truth about the
world. Now, so the general aim is to
say is the same, but science aims more.

(42:14):
It took wants to construct a body of facts about the world,
whereas philosophy aims at conceptual clarity.
Think about in how many different ways we talk about
consciousness in a more general understanding of things, and
settlers says that the this I think this is the best that
attempt to explain what philosophy is, that the aim of

(42:37):
philosophy is to understand how things in the broadest possible
sense of the word hang together in the broadest possible sense
of the world. So science would study quarks
and neurons and gluons and, and the chemical elements and the
cells, let's say. But philosophy will ask, OK,
what's the relation between neurons and gluons with stamp

(43:01):
collecting or paying a bill or our obligations to animals and
so on. So philosophy is much more
general, ask much more fundamental questions, and these
do not fall within the purview of science.
And there's also seems to be a lot of disagreement among

(43:24):
philosophers, which is not it's not the same in science, even
though there's a lot more disagreement in science than
people tend to believe. So anyway, so when we talk about
what the relationship between science and philosophy is, I
think there are three questions we have to distinguish.
So one is, would there be science without philosophy as we
know it today? And I think the answer to that

(43:45):
is no, but that's a contingent historical fact because science
appears in the 16th century whenpeople start to reject the
Platonism and Aristotelianism and theology as ways of knowing
about the world. And then during the
Enlightenment, philosophy, philosophers and scientists were

(44:07):
very much in the in dialogue, the card, Leibnitz, Spinoza,
people like that. Locke contributed to this new
body of knowledge and offered metaphysical foundations and a
framework for it. And then after the 17th century,
we start, you know, with Galileowho's come along, He has his
mathematical approach, we have the experimental method.

(44:30):
And slowly these two, science and metaphysics start to
separate. But this is very, this happens
very slowly. And it's important to remember
that until the beginning of the 20th century, it was common in
England for physicists to call themselves natural philosophers.
And Max Bourne's position at Edinburgh was Tate professor of

(44:53):
natural philosopher. So I think history, OK,
historically science wouldn't exist without philosophy.
But again, this is a philosophical historical
contingency, I suppose. Now the, the, the other
question, the intermediate question is, is the practice of
science, this thing from the parts of philosophy?

(45:13):
And I think the answer to that is absolutely yes.
People don't like to hear it. But yes, I mean, there are
philosophy scientists who are philosophically inclined.
There are philosophers who have studied, who study philosophy
and who discuss philosophical issues like Seth Lloyd at MIT or

(45:34):
Robert Spekins at the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics
in Canada. And of course, Einstein read a
lot of philosophy. Max Borne in Algar lecture in
1938 was called some philosophical problems, I think
in modern physics. And Schrodinger, who's my

(45:56):
favorite, who actually says in in in 1956 in what is life?
He says explicitly, he says the origins of modern science,
science line philosophical in Western philosophy.
And if you don't understand Western philosophy, you won't
understand modern science. And he also says something which
I find amazing. He says features.

(46:17):
No scientist I, I, but I know would say this.
He says features of today's scientific image are
historically produced and not logically necessitated.
So there are scientists who understand philosophy, who
tackle philosophical questions, but generally most scientists
don't. And those and often most of them

(46:39):
or those who do do it badly, very good scientists, very bad
philosophers, fact, I mean they don't even often know what to
talk about. But then they more the question,
and I think here is where the real question lies is can there
be science without philosophicalthinking in its practice?

(47:00):
And I think that though academicphilosophy and, you know, the
details of what we do are not necessary, but the general kind
of thinking, which is philosophical, needs to be part
of science. And here then it also says that
there's no philosophy. There's no science without
philosophy. There's only science that

(47:23):
carries its philosophical baggage without examination.
And Kuhn also says that during paradigm shifts, scientists tell
the philosophers to unpuzzle to solve the puzzles.
Why? Because you are looking at the
assumptions you're making to weaken the whole of tradition on

(47:45):
the mind. So it's always a scientist who
are at different tiers of science, I think, who are more
philosophically inclined and better at philosophy.
So one of the things that I think philosophers studying
science consciousness to is looking for these assumptions.
This is the critical work, the conceptual work that I think is

(48:05):
necessary in our discussion, especially in a field that so
muddy as consciousness. I mean, we don't know what
consciousness is. We can't agree on that.
We don't know who's conscious orwhat kinds of being could be
conscious. We don't know.
We don't agree on how we should study consciousness.
So some philosophical work needsto be done.

(48:30):
So I think. So to wrap this up, I think that
when you ask what is the relation between science and
philosophy, you already have assumptions belong to this
question. And one of the assumptions is
that you have a view of science that is sort of artificial, that

(48:52):
science deals. Only it's someone in the lab
with his hands in the mud who tries to express theories in a
functional language. Not interested in Parsimoni, not
interested in unification of theories, not interested in the
symmetry and things like that. And that's true of many
scientists, but not all. And there are parts of science

(49:18):
and philosophy that you cannot tell apart.
I think there's a continuity to science and philosophy, like
there's a continuity of math andphysics.
Most science is science and mostphilosophy is clearly
philosophy. But there are parts of both
where you can't really make a distinction between the two
except in pragmatic terms. There's a pragmatic distinction

(49:39):
and the marginal connections, yes.
So I think ultimately we have tothe the disciplines have to
inform each other and and I think that the that's I suspect
that that's the only way that wewill managed to make the leap
and understand something more metaphysical about

(50:00):
consciousness. There's something missing here.
Yeah, in in keeping with what you what you're talking about
now and something you said earlier regarding the
naturalization of philosophy of mind, Should philosophy of mind
be naturalized, fully integratedwith sciences or does that risk
losing the phenomena we're trying to understand in the
first place? Well, it depends what you mean

(50:26):
by naturalism, because I mean, what do you mean?
There's a sense in which naturalism means that I don't
believe in anything supernatural, God forbid, right?
But but that's a whole question.What does supernatural mean?
So I can break this down for youtoo, and we can try and figure
this out together. Let's.

(50:46):
Do it. OK, so at least in philosophy
there are two ways of understanding naturalism. 1 is
as a methodological recommendation, like an
epistemological approach. So you say that genuine
knowledge can only come from thesciences.
That's it. That's the only path to truth or

(51:08):
to knowledge anyway. And again, here we can quote
Sellers. He says in the dimension of
describing the world, science isthe measure of all things, of
everything that of what is, thatit is and of what is not, that
it is not a sweeping statement and which I find quite silly.

(51:30):
But anyway, I didn't say that. So the one is that science is
our only tool for uncovering truth.
And then we have a metaphysical or ontological claim.
So you're a naturalist if you think that the natural is all
that exists. And then of course, you can
define naturalism in many different ways.

(51:51):
So John Searle is a biological naturalist, David Papineau and
Louis Armstrong. Louis David Armstrong, sorry,
are more of physicalists. But the idea here is that when
we talk about naturalism, usually we go from.
So naturalism is associated withscientific understanding.

(52:14):
Scientific understanding is associated with reduction.
So try to figure out what it's made of, how the relations, how
the parts interact. Reductionism is associated with
physicalism and materialism, andso naturalism is reductionism.
So to answer your question, if you think if is that if that's

(52:36):
what you mean, no, the answer isno, I don't think it's
necessary. And I'm not the only person who
thinks of course, this, but I don't think naturalism requires
reductionism or physicalism. I think that what we want, I
mean we should reject things that don't exist, clearly.
And what exists is the real. And to say that that is

(52:59):
exhausted by what science says there is, makes anything not
tackled by science but natural, which I think is quite an
extraordinary statement. I mean, even the the the
statement itself, all there is is what science says there is.
It's sort of a metaphysical statement.
It's not, it's, it's, it's not apiece of scientific knowledge.

(53:24):
OK. So it's a regulative principle,
let's say. And I think the real question to
ask here is, is there a, is there a good reason to think
that we do not understand something if we have not
understood it in a non mental way?
So if we only understand it in amental way.
And I think no, I don't think that we have been given good

(53:48):
enough reasons for that. Had had we, if we had answers to
the questions about consciousness and if science
could provide them, maybe the answer would be slightly
different. But now we have these hand
thumping. What do you call them?
Materialists, I say, must be this way, but there really is no

(54:14):
tangible evidence. So I think that philosophers
should listen to scientists, butthey should not necessarily
agree with them. They should take things into
consideration and in the CD broaden his book The Mind and
its place, it's place in nature City Board was a British

(54:38):
emergentist. He's he he has a beautiful line.
He says we tend to confuse the author of Nature with the editor
of Nature. That's 25 years ago.
So we shouldn't confuse the map with the territory.
The map science can be a map, but let's not think that this is

(55:01):
identical with what we're tryingto figure out.
Well your work in bioethics often deals with moral status of
animals and extends it to thingslike AI.
Do non human minds challenge ourassumptions about consciousness
more than AI does? I don't think AI currently

(55:27):
challenges our ideas of consciousness currently.
Let's go into why I think it would.
Be good. Well, I don't think they're
conscious. NLMS, for instance, are
conscious. They might be one.
No, no, I don't think NLMS will will be conscious.
But I, I, I don't exclude the possibility that non there there

(55:50):
can be creatures, non organic creatures that could be
conscious. I, I, I surprisingly, I don't
think that that's an impossibility.
It's not the way they are now. I don't it's, I don't think
there's any discussion there. They might be intelligent right

(56:10):
now in certain ways. But yeah, I, I don't exclude it.
Of course, it wouldn't be just asomething in, in behind the
screen. As I said before, I don't think
that the brain, an isolated brain needs to be conscious.

(56:32):
I if we made complex enough machines that interact with the
world, I think eventually it could happen.
I've seen, I've seen Stranger Things, but well, they, they, I
think that animals, well, one thing that I, I, I think animals

(57:00):
show us is that consciousness comes, can come in many
different forms. And I think this is very
important to remember. And I think this is what
psychedelics also do, that we have this idea of what
consciousness is. But consciousness arises when
many different things come together.

(57:21):
And it's not just an on off. It's not like I don't think
consciousness never existed. And all of a sudden humans
appeared and there was light. I think consciousness and
conclusion is an ongoing processof sense making in your
interaction with the world. And it, I think it you see, I'm
getting it emerges from from thecomplex interaction of a brain

(57:49):
senses, the evolutionary path ofan Organism and the kind of life
they have evolved to live. Yes.
So I mean first of all the senses, a species will have

(58:09):
experiences that come through the the senses it uses, it uses
most in its interaction with theworld and and that of course
will specify the kind of information the brain is tends
to prioritise. So birds, some birds have very

(58:32):
rich visual worlds or dogs have a very detailed olfactory world
that must have an effect in their phenomenology, how they
experience the world. Then there's a brain structure.
We have a very layered neocortex.
So we we have the ability to be flexible in our thinking.

(58:54):
You'd be surprised to learn thatwe have a wide range of emotions
we can plan ahead. Birds, on the other hand, some
birds have a very different brain structure, but they have a
very complex pallium. So again, they have some birds

(59:14):
exhibit problem solving abilities, tool use, but the
brain structure you have and thesenses you have also affect what
you experience as affordances inthe world, right?
How you can use the word. And then of course, we have
animals and humans. Well, human animals, different

(59:36):
kinds of animals, including humans, have very different
cognitive capacities. So I think that all of these
things change how you experiencethe world.
And I think that phenomenology comes into consciousness.
And I think if you start observing animals and if you
start taking animals seriously and you start.

(01:00:00):
Not thinking that only we are conscious and they are not.
But if you start thinking, OK, they're conscious, what is their
consciousness like? You open up your thinking about
consciousness in ways that is essential in the same way that
psychedelics do the same. And, and for AI, of course, we

(01:00:20):
always have to distinguish intelligence from consciousness.
Sometimes you have consciousnesswithout intelligence somehow.
Sometimes you can have intelligence without
consciousness, yeah. Yeah, I think it takes us back
to the infamous, what is it liketo be a bet?
So it's it's one of these fundamental questions.
I mean, given your experience incognitive science, psychiatry,

(01:00:42):
do you think that generally consciousness research needs to
incorporate subjective reports more more serious?
Yeah. And that we rely too heavily on
third person data. Yes, absolutely.
And then how can we use that information to then approach
other species knowing that we lack this inherent of bullets to

(01:01:05):
understand their subjective reports?
That's a that's a very good question and I was thinking
about it this morning. I don't know that's ethologists
seem and other scientists that deal with animals seem to have
methods of understanding animalsin ways that I don't even I, I

(01:01:28):
should get into this research and understand how they do it,
But how do they know, for instance, that bees have the
ability to to solve basic mathematical problems?
How do you figure that out? I don't know.
I, I this is, this is beyond me,but hopeful.
Thankfully, there are people whoknow much more about that than

(01:01:52):
me. Yeah, I think that that would be
it's, it's really exciting. I think just I think it was
about two days ago I saw something about I think it might
have been orcas or or dolphins. But like every few months you're
noticing new breakthroughs in the way they communicate and,
and we're figuring these things out and, and the, some of the
tools in the, the method, the, the, the ways that they do this,

(01:02:13):
It's incredible. Like when you see what some
scientists are capable of doing when they put their heart and
soul into something and they're really passionate about a
project, then you see true creativity come out.
And it's, it's particularly, I find in those types of
experiments with animals where that passion brings out a
creativity that's like, like nothing I've ever seen before.
That is true. That is true.
Yeah, I you're right. I forgot to ask you this

(01:02:36):
earlier, but how do you distinguish between
consciousness, self with an agency?
Consciousness, self, agency. I'm not quite sure about agency

(01:02:59):
and I'm not quite sure about consciousness.
I was because again, I had this discussion the other day.
I said I, when I think of consciousness, I, there are
parts of it that the, the way I,I think about it goes close to
the global workspace theory thatso consciousness is a phenomenal

(01:03:21):
world that this, these, these experiences we have that we are
all very intimately connected to.
We all know what we're talking about when we say that I have
certain emotions, I have certainfears, certain sensations and so
on. So it's that where that, but I

(01:03:42):
think axis, you also need to incorporate axis consciousness
to that. So you also need to incorporate
the idea that these things are available to you to
introspection and that and I know that there are limits to
this train of thought and that you can also use them
introspectively to develop more feelings, more beliefs, more

(01:04:09):
whatever it is you're talking about.
The sense of self also requires the limitation between you and
the other person. I think there are I and I think
consciousness and the self in humans a case a sense of self go

(01:04:35):
hand usually go hand in hand except in certain pathological
conditions. But I said, but then the
question is if they are organ, if, if they are, if they always
go together, what do we do with animals?
Do we want to say that the animals have a sense of self?

(01:05:01):
I And to that I would say that I, of course, I can't exclude
it. I don't, I, I don't know how to
give you necessary and sufficient conditions for each
one of these things. I don't think agency necessarily
comes with consciousness or a sense of self, but consciousness
and selfhood I think are intimately connected get not in

(01:05:24):
ways that cannot come apart. Well, that's precisely why we've
got the Minded Lodge project happening is that's why
hopefully we get more answers about all these questions from
you all the other great panellists if you when you think
about the Minded large project. I suspect we'll have more
questions than answers, by the way.
Probably, most likely, I think that's that's probably the goal

(01:05:44):
as well. So just to open up the open up
this platform, try and bring together all these different
metaphysical frameworks. Do you see convergence on the
horizon, or are these views all ultimately just unbridgeable?
You mean theories of consciousness?
All these different metaphysicalframeworks, do you see a
convergence on the horizon? No, I don't.

(01:06:08):
Yes. As I said, I think that when,
and it's very difficult for me to talk about it because it's,
it's not my, my thought is not very specific on this.
I, I have a sense that in order to solve this puzzle, something
is missing and I don't. And once that is, I think the,
the field of play will change completely.

(01:06:31):
And I think we're going to look back at today the way we were
looking at, I don't know, we thought that ancient Greeks
thought about the physical worldalmost.
Like an an ancient pause like atthe in vital almost the way we
perceive that today. Exactly.
Yes, I think I, I think there's,there's I, I even have

(01:06:55):
difficulty expressing it becauseI, I don't know what it's going
to be and I do to return becauseI, I talked about emergence
before. So one thing that pulls me is
the idea that, you know, it's consciousness is an emergent
feature of the world. I don't have a problem with
emergentism, even strong emergentism.

(01:07:15):
I know people react to it a lot,but I don't I, I think the
problems that I'd identified with it are not problems that
are not shared by other theories.
But I also have a strong pull towards the fundamentality that
you asked me before. I, I, I, but the, I don't think

(01:07:42):
consciousness and matter are twodifferent fundamental things.
I think they are somehow the same.
And I know that people have saidthis before, but none of the
explanations given for this makesense.
I mean, there's something we're missing, and it might.
People will hate me for saying this, my colleagues, but it

(01:08:05):
might be a scientific breakthrough.
Yeah. Do you think that that
fundamentality is actually almost a teleological purpose
for consciousness in a sense or like this is this phenomenon a
process that we're trying to getto in a sense or not really?
Not really. I mean, I don't, Yeah, I don't

(01:08:28):
think, I don't think in that way, No, no.
I think it's even better that you saying this because it
highlights the diversity of thought that we're going to have
at this conference. And that's exactly the point.
So I think it's perfect that youare saying that because at some
point when I asked Peter, Andrew, anyone else, Matt about
this, it's going to be good to actually have these discussions.
And I'm chatting to John and Jared soon.

(01:08:49):
So we're going to be having a nice group chat.
It will be OK, I was going to ask.
You so it's it's going to be exciting I think that this
project has so much potential tobe something so great and I'm
super excited to be there looking ahead if you look at the
mind at large project, what do you foresee in the next three
years so I know you're looking for that breakthrough that we
need to make but. Yes, I don't expect it to happen

(01:09:10):
for at the minor large conferences I think we're going
to have a lot of fun and interesting ideas and become
more wise, but I don't think we'll get the answer.
But anyway, so the question was.But in general, so in general,
your thoughts on the Minded Lodge project, what excites you
most about this? What are you most looking
forward to and and looking ahead, what what can the viewers
expect from this? Well, for me personally, because

(01:09:34):
as I said, I am, I think I am the most conservative of the
bunch in many ways. And, and what has attracted me
to this is first, my curiosity for thinking that is so
different from mine. And, and I, I look forward to
being challenged. I want people to challenge my

(01:09:55):
assumptions because, you know, you kind of stick with those.
And I'm looking, really looking forward to it because the, I
mean, generally the easiest thing to do when somebody
disagrees is dismiss them as notunderstanding or, you know,
they're stupid. But then if you put yourself
among people who are smart people, who are educated, people

(01:10:17):
who know what they're talking about, it's not, you know, a
conversation over beer, then youreally have to take things
seriously. So you really have to think, how
can somebody think that? So I want to see for me that's
very important and maybe there'll be something there for
me to learn. What I hope will happen

(01:10:40):
generally is I think the, I, I think that even though the
default view of people is very materialistic and I see it in my
students, you know, you ask themand immediately they'll say it's
all, it's all matter. But they don't really believe

(01:11:00):
that because when we try and break it down, they all, they,
they, they don't want to say soul.
They get stay away from the wordsoul.
But then they talk about something spiritual up there.
So I think people do have this need and I, and I don't mean

(01:11:22):
just a psychological need. I think there's something there
that they're not really convinced about it.
So I think I want, I, what I hope this project will do is
allow people to have these thoughts and allow people to
entertain them. And then if you allow these
things, if you allow space for these things, then one day a new
hypothesis might come. Then, you know, my students who

(01:11:44):
are rarely our philosophy majors, when he's in the lab,
will allow himself to entertain an idea without thinking.
Oh, this is silly, because there's a lot of gatekeeping in
science and in philosophy. You, you know, you just touched
on something very important because I often talk about this,
the fact that I mean, we think that materialism or this monist

(01:12:04):
view of reality is what most people tend to believe.
But when you do the studies, I think it's, it's almost clear
that most people actually have avery much dualistic view on, on
reality. And what you're touching about
that soul part is pretty much that essence that they think is
there, this ethereal immaterial entity that does exist.
So for the most part we're trying to actually it's going to
probably be both trying to convert more dualists then.

(01:12:27):
Well, yes, because I think there's a difference.
Because even, OK, people don't think about metaphysics, so they
don't have necessarily very coherent views about things.
But if you ask them about the soul, many people will say yes,
of course this all exists, you know, how could it not?
But if you ask them whether the mind is different from the

(01:12:48):
brain, there they say no. And that's something about the
state that has to do with the status of science in our
society. So it's like 1's more of a
rational thought and the other one's more of an intuitive feel
of reality when it comes to the soul thought.
Yes, because I mean nobody. You know, you hear scientists

(01:13:11):
say talk about, not scientists, science reporting.
I suppose dismissing the idea ofa mind or talking about
everything is matter. But you don't have the same
discussions about the soul because people don't really
discuss the soul very much in those contexts.
But I would like, and this is very strange coming for me.

(01:13:32):
If you, if my students listen, hear this, they say, how could
you say this? Because I'm, I'm one of those
people who are very, as I said, cautious about this.
But I think that one of the goodthings is that, you know, allow
people to think this and allow people to pursue this

(01:13:56):
philosophically. Allow them to because of course,
you know, you're a scientist, you're a philosopher.
You can't. There's this idea that, ah, a
scientist or a philosopher studies whatever they want.
No, of course they don't. It's job.
You need funding, you need to publish.
So you're going to go with the safe questions, the ones that
are going to give you the promotion, you're going to give

(01:14:18):
you funding, right? And I think this might be very
good for people's careers, but it's very bad for science and
philosophy. It's what?
We don't know that. That, that is a very good point.
And I think that's something worth highlighting.
The fact that because this is such an academic pursuit and
what we're doing here is actually, so it's going to be so
grounded in academia as well that it's a great opportunity

(01:14:39):
for lots of people. I mean, as we just we spoke
about earlier the abstract submissions, this is a great way
to expose ideas and to explore this in a much more open minded
way and not falling trap into this relativism where you can
just talk about anything. Obviously, we still want
rigorous philosophy. No, we don't want no, definitely
not everything goes. We, we, we still remain

(01:15:01):
academics, we still remain philosophers.
And you know that we are the themost strict reviewers of all,
but but we won't judge the subject matter.
We we're going to look at the evidence, the argumentation,
Yeah. So if you have an idea that's
out there, but you can support it adequately.

(01:15:21):
Try it. The overall goal, I think it's
beautiful. I think your work's wonderful.
It's it's it's exciting to chat to you and I'm looking forward
to seeing what you present or what you what you show us when
we get there. But yeah, in General Minded
Lodge project, What are you mostexcited about, Ellie?
I, I'm excited about being challenged.
I, I, I, I love it when like you, you know, when people ask

(01:15:44):
me questions or bring up an ideaand I feel, I think that can be,
possibly be true. And then they give me reasons
and I say OK. Which is.
Let's see what happens. I'm also looking forward to it.
Hopefully our minds both change.And yeah, I oh.
Yes, we'll either have no ideas or get out of there very
confused. But either way, I think, I think

(01:16:07):
being intellectually shaped is good, and I'm looking forward to
that. Yeah, and I think this is the
start of a three-year odyssey that's hopefully going to
continue for as long as possible.
So Hailey, thank you so much forjoining me.
It's been such a pleasure to have you.
Thank you. Thank you so much and see you
soon.

All Episodes

Consciousness Beyond Materialism: A New Framework for Mind & Reality | Elly Vintiadis

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Consciousness Beyond Materialism: A New Framework for Mind & Reality | Elly Vintiadis