Podcast appearances and mentions of Galen Strawson

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! ¿Es posible que la consciencia humana pueda volcarse en un soporte informático y seguir desarrollando su actividad fuera del cuerpo? ¿Existe la consciencia en el universo como un elemento que forma parte de él incluso antes de la existencia del ser humano? Estos son algunos de los temas que tratamos en esta Contraportada para mecenas del programa como continuación al episodio sobre la consciencia dentro de la serie sobre la historia de la filosofía. Con Francisco J. García analizamos el pensamiento de Susan Schneider, filósofa que reflexiona sobre la consciencia en el mundo de la inteligencia artificial, y de Galen Strawson, un autor que defiende la idea de que la consciencia podría ser una propiedad fundamental del universo. Esperemos que os guste y muchas gracias por apoyar este proyecto de divulgación cultural. Si tú también quieres escuchar este episodio y muchos más que nunca retiramos puedes hacerlo aquí en iVoox en el botón azul Apoyar en nuestro perfil: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-abrazo-del-oso-podcast_sq_f13737_1.html Serie completa, Filosofía en el Abrazo del Oso: https://go.ivoox.com/bk/10369731 www.elabrazodeloso.es www.latostadora.com/elabrazodeloso Canal de Telegram para estar informado: https://t.me/+T6RxUKg_xhk0NzE0 Grupo abierto de Telegram para conversar: https://t.me/+tBHrUSWNbZswNThk Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/elabrazodeloso Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Tässä jaksossa kerron mitä eroa on kahdella tavalla elää ja olla. Nuo tavat ovat narratiivinen ja episodinen, ja sanojen takana on brittifilosofi Galen Strawson. Kokemuksen takana, sen sijaan, on se, joka olet - huomiokyky, jossa kaikki tapahtuu. Siinä me, kuten sanotaan, olemme yhtä.  Ja jotta kaikki ei olisi näin raskasta, soitan jakson lopussa Oldies But Goldies-osastoa, Cliff Barnes-yhtyeeni laulun Wintertime vuodelta 1999.  Jos haluat tilata koulutuksen, luennon tai valmennuksen, ota yhteyttä: jpjako@gmail.com  Lue kirjojani: https://www.stressivapaajohtaja.fi/kirjat/

This week I talk with environmental philosopher and Santa Clara Clara Assistant Professor Kimberly Dill, an old friend of mine from Austin, Texas whom I met at Bouldin Creek Coffee over lemon maté sours and a deep dive into Eastern nondual traditions while she was in school studying arguments against free will under acclaimed analytic philosopher Galen Strawson. She has since grown into a formidable scholar and ethics instructor in her own right and positively exudes a studious, diligent, caring, and starry-eyed vibe at all times…an utterly unique and finely-honed heart and intellect who stands out from the rest of my belovedly strange cohort of Austin festival-going slacker friends.I've been chasing her down to be on the podcast for years and am delighted she and I finally managed to link up to record this potent dialogue on the relationality of humankind and the wild world in which we are inextricably entangled, the substantive differences between our simulations and the originals they fail to fully reproduce, the importance of forests and dark skies to our psychospiritual well-being, where modern Western festival culture fails in its declared goal of delivering us back into right relations and ecstatic harmony with our kosmos…plus much else.Read the ✨ EXTENSIVE ✨ show notes, and join the Future Fossils community, at Patreon.Rate and review the show at Apple PodcastsBrowse my newsletter, original art, prints, merchandise, NFTs, etc.✨ Side Note:My big, BIG thanks to everyone for being so patient with me while my family and I suffered through some extraordinary challenges over the last months. I can't tell you enough how much it means to me to have retained nearly everyone's Patreon support while my wife and I dealt with two constantly sick kids, a number of our own health issues, and major upgrades to our home and big transitions at work.The good news is that I also managed to record interviews with the legendary Simon Conway Morris and Robert Poynton in that time and will be sharing those with you in short order! So, again, thanks for your subscriptions, your glowing Apple Podcasts reviews, and your engagement in the Future Fossils Facebook group…and stay tuned for several exciting big announcements soon!(Big thanks to my father-in-law Kevin Taylor for helping edit this episode!) Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/futurefossils. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are we incarcerating the innocent?Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesNote: this episode was recorded live at our philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn.Some argue behaviour is a product of our genes. Others that upbringing and environment play the primary role in determining who we are. So do we carry no responsibility for our actions? Courts have on occasion made judgments in this light. In 2006 Bradley Waldroup was acquitted of murder because he was found to have an unusual variant of a 'warrior gene' and to have been abused as a child.Is responsibility for our actions an illusion? And should we as a result abandon moral responsibility to build a fairer world? Or is the notion that our actions are determined by our genes, our upbringing or some combination a dangerous mistake? Many want to have it both ways: we are the outcome of our genes and upbringing but also responsible for our actions, but how is this possible?Eminent philosopher and literary critic Galen Strawson, stoic philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, and neuroscientist Sarah Garfinkel debate the essence of innocence and guilt. Hosted by novelist Joanna Kavenna.There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=beyond-innocence-and-guiltSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this reading group discussion episode, we discuss Galen Strawson's "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility" and Derk Pereboom's Four Case Argument against compatibilism. Here's any links you'll need to dive deeper: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d14de58c624a6d3a5e99/1471533403405/Strawson%2C+The+Impossibility+of+Moral+Responsibility.pdf https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2015/01/perebooms-four-case-argument-against.html Twitter: @JordanCMyers You can also get in contact by emailing me at platoscavepodcast@gmail.com Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true Plato's Cave Website: https://platoscave.fireside.fm/ Special Guests: Adam (Reading Group Discussions) and Giffin (Reading Group Discussions).

Dnes pokračujeme v diskusii o slobodnej vôli a determinizme a to z pohľadu povahy zmeny a dynamický systémov. V čom sú živé organizmy iné od zvyšku sveta? Sme schopní podieľať sa na vlastnej zmene? A tým pádom slobodnú vôľu? Ako do tejto diskusie vstupuje kubánska neurovedkyňa a filozofka Alicia Juarrero s jej neo-aristotelovským pohľadom na organizmy ako na dynamické seba-organizujúce sa systémy?----more----  Aj dnes vás do diskusie pozýva filozof Jakub a neurovedec Peter. + + + EXTRA ČASTI za 2 odrieknuté kávy mesačne

Slobodná vôľa verzus determinizmus a možno únik vo forme kompatibilizmu. Je toto ale správny spôsob rozmýšľania nad touto kľúčovou filozofiou dilemou? Filozof Peter Strawson navrhuje prerámcovať túto diskusie cez prizmu pesimistov a optimistov - a ponúka istú formu zmierenia.----more---- Prečo podľa neho nevieme povedať, čo vlastne determinizmus je? Prečo máme namiesto slobodnej vôle radšej hovoriť o morálnej zodpovednosti? Čo sú to tzv. participatívne reaktívne postoje, bez ktorých nevieme byť, kým sme? A v čom so Strawsonom zásadne nesúhlasí jeho syn, tiež filozof, Galen Strawson?  Aj dnes vás do diskusie pozýva vedec Jaro a filozof Jakub. + + + EXTRA ČASTI za 2 odrieknuté kávy mesačne

It's the topic voted on by our beloved Patreon patrons, panpsychism! David and Tamler delve into the resurgent debate over whether consciousness is the fundamental stuff that makes up the universe. We hoped we might be entering Miyazaki land - river spirits, benevolent radishes, a universal mind. But is this just the same old philosophy of mind debate with different words? Are there any stakes to this debate or is it purely terminological? Plus – we answer some last-minute questions from listeners on dissertations, Ukraine, pseudoscience, and the music from "The Shield."

On episode 120, we welcome philosopher Jack Symes of The Panpsychast to discuss the major competing theories of consciousness, the illusions of panpsychist idealism and materialist illusionism, Philip Goff and how his version of pansychism allows for the existence of a material universe, Massimo Piggliuci's understanding of consciousness as having evolved to help us plan and simulate difficult situations, psychedelic experiences as potential evidence of a universal consciousness, what view of consciousness Jack subscribes to, why a new science may be necessary to understand consciousness, and the greatness of Adam Sandler's films. Jack Symes is the producer of the popular, The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast and the editor of the Bloomsbury series, Talking about Philosophy. He is currently Teacher and Researcher of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, UK. His new book is called Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind (Talking about Philosophy) which features a number of prominent contributors, some of which we've had on the show before like Keith Frankish and Massimo Pigliucci.  Contributors to the book include: Miri Albahari, Susan Blackmore, David Chalmers, Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennett, Keith Frankish, Philip Goff, Frank Jackson, Casey Logue, Gregory Miller, Michelle Montague, Massimo Pigliucci and Galen Strawson. | Jack Symes | ► Website | https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2 ► Twitter 1 | https://twitter.com/ThePanpsycast ► Twitter 2 | https://twitter.com/_JackSymes ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/thepanpsycast/ ► Philosophers on Consciousness Book | https://amzn.to/3gKgudm Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Mike Isaacson: Of course you're gonna be replaced. No one lives forever. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Subscribe to our Patreon to join our book club. This should be an interesting episode. I've got Dr. Michael Cholbi with me. He's chair in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh and editor of the volume Immortality and the Philosophy of Death. He's joining me to discuss Replacement theory. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Cholbi. Michael Cholbi: Thanks very much, I really appreciate the invitation. Mike: All right, so before we get too deep into the philosophy, talk a bit about what you study and how it contributes to the human experience. Michael: Well, I'm a philosopher, and I specialize in particular in ethics. Within ethics, much of my research addresses philosophical issues, ethical issues, related to death and mortality. Some of the issues that I have written on include things like suicide and assisted dying, the desirability of immortality, the rationality of attitudes such as fear toward death, and most recently, working a significant bit on philosophical questions related to grief and bereavement. In terms of what I think it contributes to the human experience--well, I hope it contributes something to the experience--I do think that it's probably the case that even if non-human creatures have some understanding of death, some inchoate understanding of death, we human beings learn at a pretty early age about death, and we learn at a pretty early age as well, that death is ultimately unavoidable. We learn that every creature that we have ever known, every creature that ever will exist including ourselves, does die eventually. And I think as a consequence of that, we have to live our lives in light of that fact. It seems to be pretty clear that our attitudes about death and mortality impact a lot of how we approach the world, what our attitudes are, what our aspirations are. So I'd like to think that philosophy of death or dying is a subject that is relevant to people not because of, you know, their being a member of a profession, or because they come from a certain part of the world or whatever it might be, but simply because they're human and they are aware of the fact of their mortality. I think we all grapple with it, and I think that philosophy has some particular tools or methods that can help people grapple with it in a helpful way. Mike: Now, the reason I wanted to have you on is because I think replacement theory sort of revolves around a fear of death or an inability to grapple with one's own mortality. So there's this idea of being replaced, it's obviously fundamental to the theory itself, and I think this relates to the idea of the first part of your book, “Is death bad for those that die?” I think that replacement theory would answer in the affirmative, and probably most people, though less frantically. So what do philosophers have to say on this question? Does anyone say no? Michael: Well, I actually think there's a pretty significant contingent, right, of philosophers in different traditions who don't think that death is bad for the person who dies, or at least isn't bad necessarily. And I think that those who hold that view fall into several different categories. One category are those philosophers who believed in the afterlife. A significant number of philosophers have worked in Christian and Islamic traditions and of course, according to those traditions, death is not really the end of us; it's more like a transition for us in that we change from being mortal embodied living creatures to being immortal creatures. Not all of the thinkers who believe in afterlife have believed in what we would think of as religions in the usual sense. Socrates famously argued that his death was not going to be bad for him because this was his opportunity to be released from his body and to become acquainted with the eternal and unchanging forms that he believed are the source of all knowledge. Another school of thought that has denied that death is bad for us were the Epicureans and they have their contemporary defenders. Epicurean philosophers believe that death is neither good nor bad for us. Their famous slogan is "Death's nothing to us," and their point of view is that death is the end of us. We don't survive it. There's no afterlife. And because we don't survive it, we don't experience anything bad, there's nothing to be bad about death, and we simply don't exist. So in their view, death is neither bad nor good. Then there's a third school of thought that's a bit more contemporary. Most philosophers who adopt this school of thought would call themselves Deprivationists or Comparativists, and roughly the idea is something like this, that your death can be bad for you, and the way it can be bad for you is that if you die at a particular point in time, then had you not died at that time you would have lived longer, and had you lived longer, there's the possibility that you would have had a better life overall. So were I to die today then that means I would not survive longer, and perhaps had I survived longer, I would have had the opportunity to have a better life, a happier, more fulfilling life, to say. So there's certainly been many schools of philosophical thought, many philosophers, that have thought that death is not bad for us, or at least not necessarily bad for us, I should say. That said, I think it's been one of the sort of perennial questions in philosophy and there are a good number of people on the other side of the ledger who think that there's something deeply terrible about death just insofar as it represents the kind of destruction of our consciousness or of our subjectivity. It's bad simply insofar as it represents the cessation of the existence of the only thing that each of us can really say that we know or count on–ourselves. And maybe that's bad enough to make death bad. Mike: This kind of gets us into the next topic I want to get into. One of the topics that comes up in your book is the idea of life as a narrative arc that concludes with your death. And it seems like that is roundly refuted but it still feels compelling. It forms the basis of most action, adventure, sci fi, fantasy, etc, stories. And it kind of implies destiny, which is something crucial to replacement theory. Even the Comparative approach touched on in the first part of the book takes for granted one's destiny that we compare, you know, beyond one's ultimate death, or one's untimely death. Replacement theory kind of takes this narrative arc story of an individual life and puts it at the meta level with the grand narrative of the nation. So, how do philosophers take on this idea of life as a story, presumably that concludes with one's death? Michael: Well, I certainly think that outside of philosophy and say psychology, we see an abundance of evidence that perhaps one of the defining features of human beings is that we're storytellers, right? We tell stories about ourselves, about other people, about our communities. And it's certainly possible to look at one's life as a narrative, as a kind of story. There are philosophers who have denied that this is sort of essential to us. There's a living philosopher now named Galen Strawson who has essentially said that, or at least from his point of view, he lives his life as a series of disconnected episodes as if there's sort of no narrative, unity, or structure to them at all. And of course, there's also the possibility that we tell stories about our lives or craft narratives about our lives that turn out to be false or incoherent or really don't make any sense. I don't think necessarily that the notion that we view our lives as narratives and our lives as narratives implies destiny. In fact, I think a lot of what people are attempting to do in the course of their lives is to try to craft a life that corresponds to a certain story. So, perhaps you have a life where a certain kind of adversity was present early on in life, but one of the central things that you tried to do was to overcome that adversity, and by the end of your life, it's clear that you had overcome that adversity. That's a pretty common trope in the stories that people aspire to create for their lives. I think at the collective level-- and that seems to be really what sort of Nazi replacements theory is operating at a sort of meta level as you said-- you know, the notion that we aspire to tell stories about ourselves that connect us with others, and in particular connect us with others who will continue to exist after we are gone is a very powerful human equation. I think certainly, many people when they think about what they want out of their lives, they want in some ways their lives to transcend their own biographies, right, to have a legacy, to leave an impact in the world, to improve life for the next generation. In fact there's a philosopher recently, Samuel Scheffler, who has kind of coined this idea of the "collective afterlife" that much of what we do and care about, when we sit back and reflect upon it, seems to assume that there will be people who will exist after we're gone. So if you're a cancer researcher, and you were to learn that in the days after your death the entire earth and the whole human species were to be destroyed by an asteroid, Schaeffler says that would probably change your goals, right? You wouldn't think that curing cancer was so important a goal. So I think it's pretty baked in. I think, to human nature to be able to view our lives as stories, to want our stories to interconnect with other people, other members of our family, our community our nation, our religion. It's actually a very commonplace feature of human life that we struggle with death, and one of the ways that we try to address that struggle, I think, is by crafting a narrative that transcends ourselves as individuals. Mike: All right. So your book ends with a part on immortality, which I think is also important for Replacement theory. This idea that you will somehow live on through your nation or your race or your genes or whatever. It seems like a mystical way of achieving immortality. So, historically philosophically, how do people seek to attain immortality? How does it color the way we navigate the world? Michael: Well, I mean  in some ways I would say that the desire for a kind of immortality that is symbolic, as some people have said, a kind of immortality that doesn't involve literally surviving as an individual, but a kind of immortality that consists in having a legacy or leaving an impact on the world. That kind of immortality is, in some sense, less mystical than in certain other ways of thinking about immortality. I suppose the most mystical or most puzzling is one that I was referring to earlier in our conversation, you know, the notion of an afterlife. It does seem to be on its face puzzling how we can die and be entirely completely dead and yet somehow survive that and come out on the other side, so to speak. But certainly, the various narratives of the afterlife are one of the ways that people have thought they could attain immortality. Another, of course, is what we've been calling legacy through family, culture, religion, nation, and so forth. And a third one-- and this is the one I suppose that sometimes people forget about-- is that you could conceivably attain immortality simply by not dying. [laughs] So you know, if you were to be able to find the proverbial fountain of youth, that would give you eternal life rather than some post mortem immortal life, that'd be a kind of immortality too. I think in terms of the place that thinking about mortality has in human life, you know, there's a school of psychologists led by Sheldon Solomon who put forward something called terror management theory. And as the name suggests, what terror management theory is about is the idea that we human beings are aware of our deaths, and we either find this completely incomprehensible that we could die, or we find it completely terrifying, and either way, we adopt certain strategies, perhaps subconscious or unconscious strategies, to try to manage or address that anxiety. In this respect, the terror management theorists are following upon the work of an anthropologist's writing in the 1970s named Ernest Becker, he wrote a famous book called The Denial of Death. But the terror management theorists in effect say to us, "Well, many of us work very hard to either deny that we die. I suppose that could be one way of looking at belief in the afterlife as kind of the assertion that we simply don't die really. Or we try to live our lives in such a way that we're kind of reassured by the prospect that even if we do die, things that we care about continue, right? Our institutions that we're allied with, the community that we live in, our families, sports clubs that we root for, all of those kinds of things may continue to exist. And that gives us a kind of immortality that's not sort of metaphysical, right? It's not where you actually continue to exist, but I suppose you could call it a symbolic or ethical immortality." But again, I think that I agree with the terror management theorists that somewhere deep in most of our consciousness is the awareness of the fact of our death, and it probably has a huge influence on how we behave individually. It's probably responsible for many of the principal features of human culture. Anthropologists have observed that pretty much every culture that has ever been studied has beliefs and rituals surrounding death, right? [laughs] That's like the starting point for anthropologist's study of the world. So yes, definitely immortality, or striving for immortality, is a way to wrestle or grapple with a mortality that I think we all come to appreciate early on in life. Mike: So, replacement theory has been around for a while although it didn't really have a formal name as a theory until the Christchurch shooter wrote his manifesto, The Great Replacement. One thing I found interesting about the manifesto was the statistic he chooses to focus on. So fascists, racists, xenophobes, they generally appeal to a variety of statistics—racial crime statistics, racial population demographics, not very often racial immigration rates. But the Christchurch shooter chose to focus on racial birth rates. For him, death is the birth of the Other. There's this fear of being bred out. For fascists, there's a sort of philosophical underpinning to this. It has to do with how they view the life and the nation. They consider the nation or identity or whatever, to be literally a living organism or super organism. This implies all the normal things about life–the power of decision making, a lifecycle, etc. For fascists, the nation is a living thing with the state as its power of cognition. This is very similar to one thing we discussed on a previous episode, The Great Chain of Being, this idea that a kingdom is a living organism with the king is the head, and various classes of society as various body parts. So whereas The Great Chain of Being is held together by divine right, fascism is held together by kinship, yielding culture, civilization, politics, economics, etc. This kinship is a unifying force that fuses individuals into an organic nation. And like all living beings, a nation is born; it has a youth, it has a maturation, a frail old age, and an eventual death. Now, fundamentally this comes from a fascist obsession with the organic and applying pseudo-biological models to everything. Anyway, here's my question. How does death shape the way we view non-living phenomena? Michael: Hm. That's the toughest question you've asked me. When we're thinking about non-living phenomenon, are we thinking about just sort of matter? [laughs] Mike: One example you can think of may be like the way that we think of when a computer breaks down, it dies. You know? But also like the idea that a nation in decline is dying or things like that. Michael: Okay, I see. So death as a sort of metaphor for nonliving things, things that can't in some literal sense die. Good. Okay. Again, I think in some ways this goes back to storytelling. There is this well observed psychological tendency we have to attribute agency, personhood, to things that our better selves know aren't agents and don't have personhood. You know, your cell phone breaks down, your cell phone dies on you-- noticed how I used that word dies-- we tend to personify it, right? We sort of think of it as something like an organism. Now, part of that, of course, is simply that thinking of things as having agency, as being person-like, is one of the ways that we try to conceptualize the world around us. And of course, this has some limitations. Sometimes I think you could say that perhaps certain advances in science have been impeded because we have some difficulty in understanding the prospect that events can happen without there being a storyteller or something sort of behind these events that instigates them or chooses them. This is kind of the basis for the infamous argument for God's existence, the argument from design that the world seems so orderly and harmonious in certain sorts of ways. And so this argument tries to infer that that order, that harmoniousness had to have been willed into existence by a god, right? By some sort of divinity. It's certainly, I think, an instinct we have to personify other beings even when they're not persons, to treat them as agents even when they're not agents. I suppose that there's a kind of distortion there as at root in thinking about collective entities as if they are organisms. They're not organisms. And you're certainly right that there's something perhaps misguided about the Nazi replacement theory insofar as it thinks of society as a kind of organism that has these parts that can be healthy or diseased. And I suppose that part of the Nazi ideology has been to try to extirpate the diseased parts in order to preserve and maintain the healthy parts. I'm not sure it's the metaphor that's the problem, but perhaps the particular construal ofit that the Nazi ideology gives, that societies are collectivities or organisms that have these parts that thrive or can be unhealthy on their own. Mike: Okay so there was one article in the volume that at least one review I read took exception to. So the article in question is titled “Constructing Death as a Form of Failure: Addressing Mortality in a Neoliberal Age.” Now I won't make you rehash someone else's article. But I do want to talk about kind of the underriding theme of this article which is the idea that social values shape the way we conceptualize death. So how do social values shape the way we conceptualize death? Michael: I think that particular article was emphasizing a certain way in which contemporary societies sometimes seem to understand death. That death is a sort of failure and that we should attempt to extirpate it, eliminate it if we can, or delay it as long as possible. I mean, certainly many people as they face death, as they become ill and their days become short, some people--not all--do seem to think that their deaths would amount to a kind of failure. Even some physicians have difficulty letting go of the idea that a patient who dies is a patient that they have failed. But I think that's an indication of a sort of broader phenomenon and a broader reality where societies certainly do have values that invite certain interpretations or understandings of the significance of death. Just to give a sort of stark contrast, societies like ours that suppose often that the best sort of life is one that is very productive, where you have a lot of accomplishments, where you enjoy the various kinds of successes and various kinds of material goods. Well, death then looks like the end of all that, and that looks to be a misfortune. Conversely, if one looks at societies or cultures that have a much more communitarian or perhaps cyclical picture of the human condition, they don't necessarily seem to view death as the end of something good or a kind of failure. They view it as a fact that we need to reconcile ourselves to, because again we do eventually die. So I certainly think that our attitudes toward death have very rich logical and evidential interconnections with other things that we care about. And it certainly seems to be that with respect to the theme of your podcast, the Nazi belief system views deaths of white people or white culture or white civilizations as a profound loss, because of course the background ideology is one where those groups or those individuals are supposed to sort of be eternal to reign supreme. And so it's unsurprising then that they would view death as such a detrimental blow to them. Mike: All right. Now obviously, you didn't compile this book as a metaphor for replacement theory. So what do you hope that people get out of your book? Michael: Well, there's of course a collection of articles by a number of scholars--only one of the articles is by me--but I think that what this book can offer people is a richer understanding of two distinct questions that nevertheless interlock or overlap, if you will. So the first question that the book addresses is really the first question you asked about today; is death bad for us? Should we think that it's a bad thing? I think there's a diversity of opinions about this as I mentioned. There are certainly philosophical traditions that have thought that death is bad for us, others that have thought that it isn't bad in fact it's neither good nor bad. Others sort of thought that it may be bad depending upon sort of the circumstances of your death and the circumstances of your life. So I'm hoping that people will garner a more robust understanding of why that's an interesting question and the different ways that philosophers might answer it, and the kinds of arguments they give for their positions. Now, the other question that I think people will gain some insight about is the question of whether immortality would be good for us. It's natural to think that if death is bad for us then it would have to follow that the absence of death, which is to say immortality, would be good for us. But many philosophers have been skeptical about that too. [laughs] They've sort of argued that we're simply not built to be immortal, we would ultimately find the life of an immortal boring and tedious. We would end up like the immortal gods of Greek and Roman mythology where all they seemed to do with their days is sort of meddle in the lives of mortals and create mischief. Others have thought that this would amount to such a distortion of our values, you know, certain kinds of things that we care about in our mortal lives. They wouldn't be sustainable if we were immortal, right? I mean, what would it mean to marry someone, you know, to use that language "till death do us part" if death never comes? [laughs] Would we still value our romantic relationships in the same way? That's just one example where people have wondered whether immortality would in fact alter our values beyond recognition. But I guess what I'm hoping people will see in the book is that those two questions about the value of death and particularly whether it's bad, and on the other hand whether immortality would be good, are both independently interesting, but also, I think, interesting jointly. Because the question of the value of immortality arises very naturally if you believe that in fact death is bad for us. Mike: Okay. Well, Dr. Cholbi, thanks so much for coming on to The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about death and replacement theory. The book again is Immortality and the Philosophy of Death out from Rowman and Littlefield. Thanks again. Michael: Thank you. It was really a pleasure to talk to you. Mike: If you want to be an upcoming guest with us, join The Nazi Lies Book Club on Patreon. Patrons get access to the Discord server where we host the book club and occasionally share Animal Crossing memes. Patrons also get a bundle of merch for signing up, access to The Nazi Lies Calendar, and advance show notes, transcripts and episodes. See you on the Discord! [Theme song]

Episode 7 - Philosophy of the mind and psychedelics with Dr Peter Sjöstedt-H. Welcome back to the shed, listen or watch on youtube as I dive deep into the world of philosophy of the mind & psychedelics with Dr Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes. Truly a pleasure to talk to with a vast knowledge of the mind and psychedelics. Below is a copy of Dr Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes bio via his website - http://www.philosopher.eu/Dr Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes is an Anglo-Scandinavian philosopher of mind who specializes in the thought of Whitehead, Nietzsche, and Spinoza, and in fields pertaining to panpsychism and altered states of mind. Following his degree in Continental Philosophy at the University of Warwick, he became a Philosophy Lecturer in London for six years and after which he pursued his PhD (on ‘Pansentient Monism', examined by Galen Strawson and Joel Krueger) at The University of Exeter – where he is now a research fellow and associate lecturer.Peter is the author of Noumenautics, the TEDx Talker on ‘psychedelics and consciousness, and he is an inspiration to the inhuman philosopher Marvel Superhero, Karnak. In the words of a futurist, philosopher and pop star Alexander Bard: ‘One of our favourite contemporary philosophers, Peter Sjöstedt-H…think a psychedelic, Nietzsche'.In The Shed with Ryan;Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/intheshedwithryanApple Music - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/in-the-shed-with-ryan/id1552900816Youtube -https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiIohMb1_-3IUbcFLyQ5XQ Tik Tok –  https://www.tiktok.com/@intheshedwithryan?lang=enInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/intheshedwithryan/Twitter - https://twitter.com/intheshedwithr1Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/InTheShedwithRyan Email – contact@intheshedwithryan.ukThank You

Ben Burgis and the GTAA crew watch Christopher Hitchens vs. Sean Hannity on the legacy of Jerry Falwell and then transition to a quick debunk of Prager U's "Healthcare is Not a Right" video. For the main event, Very Bad Wizards co-host David Pizarro and philosophy professor Ryan Lake join Ben to talk about some intersections between socialist political philosophy and the issue of free will and determinism, jumping off from G.A. Cohen's book "Why Not Socialism?" Finally, Professor Jennifer Burgis comes on to talk about Galen Strawson's argument against free will before Ben heads off to hang out with Djene Bajalan in the postgame for GTAA patrons.Link for the first episode of the new Callin show (you'll have to download the app on an iPhone, sadly):https://www.callin.com/room/episode-1-ama-QXpYTwbClFLink to the class on Marx with Thaddeus Russell at Renegade University:https://renegadeuniversity.com/product/marx/Watch the full version of Hannah Hoffman Music's Charlie Kirk Euthyphro song:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMWZKcV-APUFollow David Pizarro on Twitter: @peezFollow Ryan Lake on Twitter: @chaospetListen to David on Very Bad Wizards: verybadwizards.comPreorder Ben's new book, "Christopher Hitchens: What He Got Right, How He Went Wrong, and Why He still Matters":https://redemmas.org/titles/36536-christopher-hitchens--what-he-got-right--how-he-went-wrong--and-why-he-still-mattersIndependent creators rely on your support to create the content you want! Support Give Them An Argument on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/benburgis. Patrons get a bonus episode every Thursday, access to the Discord server, a “Sopranos” Recap Bonus Episode every month with Mike Recine, Nando Vila, and Wosny Lambre, a monthly Discord Movie Night, and "Discord Office Hours" (regularly scheduled group voice chats).Follow Ben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenBurgisLike, subscribe, and get notifications on Ben's channel: https://www.youtube.com/BenBurgisGTAAVisit benburgis.com

What would a post physicalist world look like? So in this episode we're going to evaluate the evidence presented by psychiatrist and author Dr. Iain McGilchrist, from his extensive analysis of split-brain studies, that support a broader understanding of the mind and reality. One that pushes beyond the traditional reductionist materialist worldview, to include the implicit, the context dependent and the consciousness dependent. He's just released an epic two part book to clarify all of this, ‘The matter with things: Our brains, our delusions and the unmaking of the world' in which he asks how we should understand consciousness, space, time and matter, given the apparent over-emphasis on Left hemisphere interpretation of the world. Iain is an associate Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford; he's a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; a Consultant Emeritus of the Bethlem and Maudsley Hospital, London; a former research Fellow in Neuroimaging at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, in Baltimore. And he now lives on the Isle of Skye, off the coast of North West Scotland. He has published original research as well as original articles in papers and journals, including the British Journal of Psychiatry, Psychiatry & Psychology, The BMJ, The Lancet, The Wall Street Journal, The Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times on topics in literature, medicine, psychiatry and philosophy. He has taken part in many radio and TV programmes and documentaries, including for the BBC, NPR, and ABC and also took part in a Canadian full-length feature film about his work called The Divided Brain. This interview was recorded at the start of last year, so the new book is not covered in so much detail. What we discuss in this episode: 00:00 In communication with the world itself 06:30 Taking the implicit apart and out of context: disembodying it 12:00 John Cutting: noticing consequences of right hemisphere damage 14:40 The differences between the hemispheres shown in many studies 27:00 The Left Brain Interpreter: Denial and invention by the right hemisphere 29:15 Scientism: the belief that science can explain everything 30:48 Imagination and intuition in scientific discovery 33:10 Reason suggests there are immaterial things 37:40 We only know about matter because of consciousness 42:00 Navigating beyond materialism PART 2 55:00 Implications of the Observer Effect and Quantum Entanglement 57:30 The world changes depending on your attention 58:00 Panpsychism on the up in Anglo-American Analytic philosophy: Galen Strawson and Christian De Quincy etc. 01:14:00 Cells have intelligent novel reactions to the environment, genes store the map 01:19:00 Iain's new book “The Matter with Things: Our brains, our delusions and the unmaking of the world 01:22:00 Why the drop in happiness despite a rise in standard of living? References: “The Matter with Things: Our brains, our delusions, and the unmaking of the world” “Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World” Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Philosopher and neurologist John Cutting - psychiatrist Galen Strawson - philosopher Barbara McKintoch - molecular biologist

We talk about success and failure all the time. You're probably in the habit of telling yourself that you'll never succeed, or that other people are more successful than you are. But do you actually know what you mean when you say things like this? Unless you have a clear conception of who you are and what you care about, you have no idea. Join The Academic Imperfectionist to cut through the bullshit stories we tell ourselves about success and failure, and find out how to write your own rules. You can find the Wheel of Life and the Core Values exercises on the Resources page of The Academic Imperfectionist website.There's a free, online version of William James's Principles of Psychology here.Galen Strawson's Aeon article about life as a narrative (or not) is here.

Thanks for tuning in! Here's what we covered: -Defining atheism -Why is Daniel still a cringy atheist in the current year? -Origins of atheism and its journey through history -Notable atheists -Notable attempts at creating an atheist society -Why do some societies abandon religion? -Why widespread atheism is bad! -What is Christianity doing about the rise in atheism? -Evan and Dan agree to disagree OUR LINKS: Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdbF... BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/T667... Twitter @sonsofantiquity Gab @sonsofantiquity Email sonsofantiquitypodcast@gmail.com Facebook Sons of Antiquity References: -Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/at... -Atheism: https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/ -William Rowe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William... -Galen Strawson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_S... -Atheism: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/... -Epicurianism: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/... -Atheist Fun Facts: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank... -Pew Research Religious Landscape Study: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-la... -Secularization in Soviet Russia: https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/... Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago. Vintage Classics, 2018. -Referenced Section from Summa Theologiae: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.... -Relativism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti... -Nihilism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti... -Scientism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti... -Benefits of Religion: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/b... -“Chimpanzee vs. Human Child Learning” video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwwcl...

Không có thứ gì được gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức cả vì bản chất là con người cũng không có ý chí tự do. Galen Strawson tin rằng bạn sẽ không phải chịu bất cứ thứ gì gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức vì tất cả các hành động của bạn đều xảy ra vì những lý do mà bạn không thể kiểm soát. Bác Strawson tin rằng bạn hay bất cứ một ai đều không xứng đáng bị trừng trị và không xứng đáng được tán dương cho bất kì hành động nào của mình. Và không có thứ gì trên đời này được gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức cả. Góc nhìn này của bác Strawson được gọi trong thuật ngữ triết học là thuyết đạo đức hư vô (moral nihilism) Để chứng minh cho kết luận của mình, bác Strawson đưa chúng ta qua lập luận sau: #Luậnđiểm1: Tất cả những việc bạn làm đều là kết quả tất yếu của những sự kiện nằm ngoài khả năng kiểm soát của bạn. #Luậnđiểm2: Bạn không phải chịu trách nhiệm đạo đức (bạn không xứng đáng bị chê hay được khen) vì những hành động nằm ngoài khả năng kiểm soát của bạn. #Kếtluận: Bạn không bao giờ phải chịu trách nhiệm đạo đức về bất kì hành động nào của bạn cả. Để tìm hiểu rõ hơn về các lập luận của bác Strawson mời bạn đọc ở bài viết của mình nhé: https://bit.ly/3zWk8s9 Hãy đón chờ phần hai của bài viết này, ở đó mình sẽ giải thích tại sao David Hume lại nói rằng Strawson đang sai lầm với kết luận của bác ý. #determinism #freewill Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Philosophy1101 Website: https://www.philosophy1101.com/

Trách nhiệm đạo đức là gì? - What is moral responsibility? Trong triết học, bạn được coi là phải chịu trách nhiệm đạo đức cho hành động của mình khi thông qua việc làm hành động đó người khác có lý do chính đáng để nghĩ xấu hay tốt về bạn. Hay nói một cách khác, một ai đó có trách nhiệm đạo đức về hành động của họ khi thông qua hành động đó họ xứng đáng được tán dương (praiseworthy) nếu đó là hành động tốt hoặc họ xứng đáng bị chê bai (blameworthy) nếu đó là hành động xấu. Thuyết tiền định (Determinism)? Thuyết tiền định khẳng định rằng mọi sự kiện đều là kết quả bất khả kháng hay đều là kết quả của sự kiện xảy ra trước nó. Hay nói một cách ngắn gọn, cái gì cũng có lý do của nó. Thuyết tiền định chỉ ra rằng, mọi hành động, mọi nhu cầu, mọi suy nghĩ của bạn đều là kết quả của một chuỗi sự kiện nhân-quả có từ khi bạn còn chưa sinh ra. Thuyết đạo đức hư vô (Moral Nihilism) Không có thứ gì được gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức cả vì bản chất là con người cũng không có ý chí tự do. Galen Strawson tin rằng bạn sẽ không phải chịu bất cứ thứ gì gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức cả vì tất cả các hành động của bạn đều xảy ra vì những lý do mà bạn không thể kiểm soát. Bác Strawson tin rằng bạn hay bất cứ một ai đều không xứng đáng bị trừng trị và không xứng đáng được tán dương cho bất kì hành động nào của mình cả. Và không có thứ gì trên đời này được gọi là trách nhiệm đạo đức cả. Góc nhìn này của bác Strawson được gọi trong thuật ngữ triết học là thuyết đạo đức hư vô (moral nihilism) Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Philosophy1101

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Michelle Montague is Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas at Austin. She is interested in philosophy of mind and metaphysics. Dr. Montague is the editor of Non-Propositional Intentionality, Cognitive Phenomenology, and Philosophical Writings by P.F. Strawson (co-edited with Galen Strawson). She is the author of The Given: experience and its content. In this episode, we talk about philosophy of mind, with a focus on The Given. We go through several different concepts, like mental content, intentionality, and phenomenology. We discuss cognition, perception and sensory experience, and the relationship between them. We talk about the nature of consciousness. And we discuss the relationship between mind and metaphysics, the metaphysics of mental phenomena, the access we have to reality, and the metaphysical nature of reality. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, AND JULES PRICE! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!

Galen Strawson brit filozófus szerint nem létezhet szabad akarat. Nem csak minden tudásunk jön ugyanis kívülről, szocializáció útján. De az ezen egymással versengő alternatív tudások, erkölcsi kódok közötti választás szempontrendszere is bizony kívülről jön. Azaz minden. Ha pedig mi magunk nem hozunk létre semmit, akkor nem is lehet rajtunk ezeket számonkérni. Ebből pedig egyenesen következik, hogy az, hogy ki mennyire tud előrejutni a társadalomban, nem egyéni teljesítményének, hanem annak függvénye, hogy milyen lehetőségeket kap a társadalomtól. Mindez erős filozófiai alap a jóléti állam gondolatához. 

Subjective or Objective? In this Episode we're going to be introducing one of the oldest and most talked about problems in philosophy, the problem of consciousness. Just how does our subjective experience as humans relate to our existence as human bodies with brains? For most of the 20th century you couldn't really talk about this as a serious scientist without being laughed at and told to study something useful. But since the 90's, with the advancement of MRI brain imaging in neuroscience, and the coining the term The ‘Hard Problem' by funky philosopher David Chalmers, Consciousness studies have blossomed back into mainstream science. To kick off the podcast with a bang, and explain the mystery that perhaps underlies all mysteries is psychologist and author and visiting Professor at Plymouth University, Dr Susan Blackmore. Best known for her books The Meme Machine, Zen and the Art of Consciousness, Consciousness: An Introduction, and Seeing Myself, Sue's work spans across hundreds of publications in over 20 different languages, making huge contributions in the fields of psychology, memetics, religion, philosophy of mind, supernatural experience, and many other areas. It is no surprise to find her ranked amongst 2013's 30 Most Influential Psychologists Working Today and 2015's Top 100 Global Minds. In this episode we discuss: 09:12 How do we define consciousness? 15:00 Is dualism an unrealistic position? 18:00 The Hard Problem explained 23:00 Sue's Out of Body and ‘oneness with the universe' experience 36:00 Explaining OBE's biochemically 45:00 the importance of Body Schema 50:00 introducing the various theories of consciousness from materialism to idealism 51:00 Dan Dennet on consciousness 56:00 Illusionism: the belief that consciousness is an illusion 57:00 Galen Strawson and the attraction of panpsychism 58:00 the importance of the 'don't know' mind for studying consciousness 1:05:00 Zen, the self and non-duality 1:14:00 What would a post-self society look like? Books and References: Sue Blackmore - Consciousness - A very short introduction https://www.susanblackmore.uk/seeing-myself-2/ Sue Blackmore - Conversations on Consciousness https://www.susanblackmore.uk/conversations-on-consciousness/ Dan Dennett - Consciousness Explained https://www.amazon.it/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661 Sue Blackmore - Zen and the Art of Consciousness https://www.susanblackmore.uk/ten-zen-questions-zen-art-of-consciousness/ Sue's Son, illustrator for many of her books, Jolyon Troscianko http://www.jolyon.co.uk/

CONSCIOUSNESS - What is free will? Do we have free will? The ‘Big Questions in Free Will' project tackles these issues in a multi-year study. In Part I, scientists and philosophers research, test, and advance thinking on free will. Featuring Alfred Mele, Galen Strawson, John Searle, Peter van Inwagen, Christof Koch, Uri Maoz, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Thalia Wheatley, and Peter Tse.

In this episode, we discuss Galen Strawson's "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility" and Derk Pereboom's Four Case Argument against compatibilism. Strawson: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d14de58c624a6d3a5e99/1471533403405/Strawson%2C+The+Impossibility+of+Moral+Responsibility.pdf Pereboom: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2015/01/perebooms-four-case-argument-against.html Your support helps me make more videos and podcasts: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jordanmyers Twitter: @JordanCMyers Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true That's BS Website: https://thatsbs.fireside.fm/ Contact me thatsbspodcast@gmail.com Check out my philosophy graduate school podcast here: https://platoscave.fireside.fm/ Above all, Thanks for watching.

In this episode, we discuss Galen Strawson's "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility" and Derk Pereboom's Four Case Argument against compatibilism. Strawson: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d14de58c624a6d3a5e99/1471533403405/Strawson%2C+The+Impossibility+of+Moral+Responsibility.pdf Pereboom: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2015/01/perebooms-four-case-argument-against.html Your support helps me make more videos and podcasts: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jordanmyers Twitter: @JordanCMyers Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true That's BS Website: https://thatsbs.fireside.fm/ Contact me thatsbspodcast@gmail.com Check out my philosophy graduate school podcast here: https://platoscave.fireside.fm/ Above all, Thanks for watching.

We discuss the metaphysical views of pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, as elaborated in his magnum opus, The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer developed a fascinating dual-aspect monism, according to which from outside, the world appears as representation, but from inside, it appears as will: ontological monism and epistemological dualism. To Schopenhauer, desire-driven will is what we are from inside, and he goes on to argue that we should think of the underlying reality of all appearance in the same way. You represent my will as a body, but I know that there’s an underlying reality to your representation that’s experiential in character. Schopenhauer thinks the basis of this dual-aspect character of reality pervades the natural world, organic and inorganic. Why? Because this is our only form of insight into—or acquaintance with—anything as a thing in itself. “[O]n the path of objective knowledge, thus starting from the representation, we shall never get beyond the representation, i.e., the phenomenon.  We shall therefore remain at the outside of things; we shall never be able to penetrate into their inner nature, and investigate what they are in themselves…So far, I agree with Kant.  But … we ourselves are the thing-in-itself. Consequently, a way from within stands open to us to that real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without.  It is, so to speak, a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us all at once in the fortress that could not be taken by attack from without.” - Schopenhauer Schopenhauer on Will and Representation - Academy of Ideas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDw9lO8uKg) [YouTube] Peter Sjöstedt-H - Noumenautics: Metaphysics - Meta-Ethics - Psychedelics (https://www.amazon.com/Noumenautics-Metaphysics-Psychedelics-Peter-Sjostedt-H/dp/0992808855) [Amazon] Schopenhauer and the Philosophy of Mind - Peter Sjöstedt-H (http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-mind/) [Philosopher.eu] Hedda Hassel Mørch - Argument for Panpsychism from Experience of Causation (https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCTAF) [PDF] Nietzsche’s Metaphysics? - Galen Strawson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoNKiM968cU) [YouTube] Idealism - Schopenhauer (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Scho) [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Arthur Schopenhauer (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/) [SEP] Arthur Schopenhauer (https://iep.utm.edu/schopenh/) [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com (https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/) Rate the show on iTunes here (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172) Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2) Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig) Support the show at patreon.com/waldenpod Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook (http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast) Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

In this second episode of a two part series on narrativity, I look to flesh out an account of how we can think of our life if we don't think of it as story. People who are non-narratives in this way are often episodic. They live their life in chunks or episodes giving limited thought about their past and future without being obsessed with either. Episodic people tend to live in the day and the week and the month that they find themselves in without trying to consciously weave their 'now' into a coherent story with their self from childhood or 5 years ago. Are episodics being irresponsible in living this way, something less than fully human? On the other hand, are narratives overly focused on the past and therefore prone to rumination and depression? Some questions I raise along with some heavy, heavy borrowing from Galen Strawson and some trivia and the usual ramblings. I also try to link the whole academic obsession with narrativity to neoliberalism for those who like politics.

In this first episode of a two part series, I look at the idea of how we make sense of our lives to ourselves. Our life is a big  jumble of events. How do I think about my life and understand these events so that they cohere into something that constitutes a life, a self, an identity. By far, the most popular notion of doing this is to structure these events as a story. Academia has seized on this notion of making sense of our lives through narrativity so much so that it has become one of the few (near) consensus ideas in the humanities and social sciences. Against this wave of acceptance of narrativity stands one philosopher, Galen Strawson. I look at the work of Strawson and attempt to piece out the idea that, if we don't live our life according to a story, then how do we live it? Plus, the usual trivia and rambling.

After discovering that there was very little literature review regarding the impact of psychedelics on the philosophy of the mind, philosopher Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes started to research how these drugs have impacted western philosophy. On this episode of the podcast, Peter examines the cultural history of the philosophy of psychedelics and how they've shaped philosophers' perceptions of consciousness and reality. Dr Peter Sjöstedt-H is an Anglo-Scandinavian philosopher of mind who specializes in the thought of Whitehead, Nietzsche, and Spinoza, and in fields pertaining to panpsychism and altered states of mind. Following his degree in Continental Philosophy at the University of Warwick, he became a Philosophy lecturer in London for six years and after which he pursued his PhD (on ‘Pansentient Monism', examined by Galen Strawson and Joel Krueger) at the University of Exeter – where he is now a research fellow and associate lecturer. Peter is the author of Noumenautics, the TEDx Talker on ‘psychedelics and consciousness‘. Are altered states of consciousness mere hallucinations or indicative of fundamental truths of reality? William James Philosophy of psychedelics conference Exploring Frameworks for Exceptional ExperienceHumphry DavyNitrous OxideArthur Heffter Thomas De Quincey Outsight project Epiphonemalism René DescartesPsychedelics heightened appreciation of nature Eliminative materialismDavid Luke podcastAndrew Gallimore - Alien Information TheoryCarl Hart – psychedelic exceptionalism Albert Hoffman Bertrand Russell - Mysticism and logicBecome a Drug Science Community Member: https://www.donate.drugscience.org.uk/Twitter: @ProfDavidNutt @Drug_ScienceA Fascinate Productions podcast for Drug Science ★ Support this podcast ★

CONSCIOUSNESS - Is consciousness something special in the universe, a carrier of meaning and purpose? Or is consciousness a mere artifact of the brain, a by-product of evolution? I hope consciousness is special, which is why I must be a skeptic. Featuring Nicholas Humphrey, Julian Baggini, Rebecca Goldstein, Galen Strawson, Anthony Grayling, and Raymond Tallis.

Podcast: Robert Wright's Nonzero (LS 51 · TOP 0.5% )Episode: Robert Wright & Galen StrawsonRelease date: 2018-02-24Why scientific materialism is harder to define than you think … Galen explains panpsychism … What does “mind is all there is to reality” mean? … Is human consciousness epiphenomenal? … Do physical laws come from somewhere? … Is it like something to be a rock? (And is Galen saying it is?) … Galen: Discussion of the mind-body problem was better 100 years ago …

Podcast: The Wright Show Episode: Robert Wright & Galen StrawsonRelease date: 2018-02-24Why scientific materialism is harder to define than you think … Galen explains panpsychism … What does “mind is all there is to reality” mean? … Is human consciousness epiphenomenal? … Do physical laws come from somewhere? … Is it like something to be a rock? (And is Galen saying it is?) … Galen: Discussion of the mind-body problem was better 100 years ago …

“Psychedelics and Metaphysics” Episode #125 We sat down with Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-H who is a philosopher of mind who specializes in the thought of Whitehead and Nietzsche, and in fields pertaining to panpsychism and altered states of sentience. Following his degree in Continental Philosophy at the University of Warwick, he became a Philosophy lecturer in London for six years and after which he pursued his PhD (on ‘Pansentient Monism’, examined by Galen Strawson and Joel Krueger) at The University of Exeter – where he is now a research fellow and associate lecturer. Peter is the author of Noumenautics, the TEDx Talker on ‘psychedelics and consciousness‘. *If you enjoy our podcast and want to help us grow, check out our Patreon account and enjoy the exclusive episodes and interviews. You can also listen to us on the go through our website listed below. https://www.patreon.com/MikeandMaurice https://www.mikeandmauricemindescape.com/ *Here is the link to Peter's Ted Talk: https://youtu.be/tV8PSevhd_M *Here is the link to Peter's website: http://www.philosopher.eu/ *Here is the link to Peter's book: https://www.amazon.com/Noumenautics-Metaphysics-Psychedelics-Peter-Sjostedt-H/dp/0992808855

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a critique of panpsychism that’s become widely-cited in The Panpsychism Wars. Hossenfelder argues that physics has ruled out panpsychism. Panpsychists simply haven’t attempted to reconcile the massive conflict with the evidence. However, her arguments are deeply flawed, and one doesn’t need to affirm panpsychism to notice. Sabine Hossenfelder “Electrons Don’t Think” (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html) Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com (https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/) Rate the show on iTunes here (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172) Support on Patreon here (https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod) or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2) Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig) Contact me @waldenpod on Twitter or on Facebook (http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast) Music is by ichika Nito and was used with permission. “Why do the Deniers ignore a long line of distinguished materialist predecessors and ally themselves with Descartes, their sworn enemy, in holding that experience can’t possibly be physical—thereby obliging themselves to endorse the Denial? The answer appears to be that they share with Descartes one very large assumption: that we know enough about the physical to be certain that experience can’t be physical.” - Galen Strawson (https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/) “What a physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining.” - Bertrand Russell (https://twitter.com/OnPanpsychism/status/1237974901019021317) “[M]aterialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.” – Schopenhauer (https://twitter.com/PeterSjostedtH/status/1243549450473275393)

In this unique episode, Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-H joins together in conversation with Dr. Andrew Gallimore, Author of Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game. In the show, these two Englishmen discuss Peter's critique of Dr. Gallimore's recent book. 3 Key Points: Dr. Andrew Gallimore’s recent book, Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game, explains how DMT provides the secret to the very structure of our reality. Based on a recently published review of Andrew’s book, Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-H sifts through and confronts Andrew’s idea that DMT allows one access to, and existence in a hyperspatial world. They discuss Peter’s critique, covering topics on information, consciousness, dimensions, dreams and theory. Support the show Patreon Leave us a review on iTunes Share us with your friends – favorite podcast, etc Join our Facebook group - Psychedelics Today group – Find the others and create community. Navigating Psychedelics Trip Journal                                                Integration Workbook Show Notes Peter’s review on Alien Information Theory Peter mentions 3 ‘problems’ The first problem is a critique on what information is The second point regards consciousness The third point talks about dimensions and theories Information The first problem Peter states says that the originality of the work pushes the ideas further toward art and further away from truth Andrew says he is a fan of making things a work of art, and he says at the start of the book that it isn't something scientific In philosophy it's called speculative metaphysics “It's cliche isn't it, that science fiction eventually becomes science fact.” - Peter Minkowski Space Time, the theory that Einstein supports, HG Wells wrote about a half a century before Minkowski wrote about it Peter says that a person could be defined by a set of numbers, weight, height, age, etc. Andrew says that the information is the electron, and how it interacts with other information How do we know that there is not more to anything than that which we can know about it? How matter creates/is mind is a mystery Consciousness Peter asks, ‘does information at a high level produce subjectivity?’ Andrew says consciousness is fundamental Panpsychism holds a distinction between an aggregate and a hold-on Andrew says that integrated information is consciousness Information doesn't emerge from consciousness, information actually is consciousness Andrew says that he is an idealist, he thinks that the world is structured Peter says that information always has to be about something Andrew disagrees and says that information is substantiated You could say, the fundamental digits of our reality are ran by an ‘alien computer’, the physics completely different than our understanding of reality Andrew says that the absolute self is not only aware of itself, its aware that it is aware of itself He also says that these ideas are all musings, all things he has thought about as possibilities Peter asks Andrew if he thinks brains are required for consciousness Andrew says, consciousness is not a property of matter, it is an organization of things Dimensions and Theories Andrew says we don't need senses to experience other worlds The DMT experience is not mind dependent, it shows another reality When you're dreaming, it's independent of the sensory experience, but its not entirely independent of the waking world “The dream state is informed by the waking state.” - Andrew Peter asks, ‘If the brain creates dreams, why does the brain not create the DMT world?’ “We know how the brain learns to construct worlds, but we don't know how the brain learns to construct DMT worlds.” - Andrew When looking at a machine elf, is he equally as able to deny his consciousness as we are able to? Final Thoughts Peter concludes that Andrew is a Realist/Panthiest Peter and Andrew think that they don't disagree with each other, but Peter believes Andrew would have to go into extremely deep detail on all of his points in his book, and the book is thick enough as it is Peter agrees Andrew’s book is a great narrative for mapping the DMT space Andrew likes to think of it as computational idealism Links Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game Peter's Review About Dr. Andrew Gallimore Dr. Andrew Gallimore is a computational neurobiologist, pharmacologist, chemist, and writer who has been interested in the neural basis of psychedelic drug action for many years and is the author of a number of articles and research papers on the powerful psychedelic drug, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), as well as the book Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game (April 2019). He recently collaborated with DMT pioneer Dr. Rick Strassman, author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule, to develop a pharmacokinetic model of DMT as the basis of a target-controlled intravenous infusion protocol for extended journeys in DMT space. His current interests focus on DMT as a tool for gating access to extradimensional realities and how this can be understood in terms of the neuroscience of information. He currently lives and works in Japan. About Dr. Peter Sjöstedt-H Dr Peter Sjöstedt-H is an Anglo-Scandinavian philosopher of mind and a metaphysician who specializes in the thought of Whitehead and Nietzsche, and in fields pertaining to panpsychism and altered states of sentience. Following his degree in Continental Philosophy at the University of Warwick, he became a Philosophy lecturer in London for six years and has now passed his PhD (on ‘Pansentient Monism’, examined by Galen Strawson and Joel Krueger) at the University of Exeter, where he also teaches philosophy modules and writing skills. He is now to become a postdoc fellow of the university. Peter is the author of Noumenautics , the TEDx Talker on ‘psychedelics and consciousness‘, and he is  inspiration to the inhuman philosopher Marvel Superhero, Karnak.

Here is the part II series with Nick Jankel as we dive into the practicality of being a spiritual atheist.  In part I, we discussed the ins and outs of the philosophy and aspects to spiritual atheism but part II puts it all into action.  Tune in below. Who is Nick Jankel? Nick Jankel has lectured at Yale & Oxford, advised the Prime Minister at No.10 Downing Street, been invited to Science FOO Camp run by Google and Nature Journal, contributed to The Economist and The Guardian, the BBC World Service (on the subject of Artificial Intelligence) and presented at The Science Of Consciousness conference.  He can inspire your listeners with his fresh ideas on science and engage them with his playful and warm manner as he shares profound thoughts in purposefully accessible ways. We are currently launching his new book Spiritual Atheist, which has been the #1 New Release for 5 weeks on Amazon! A Cambridge-educated scientist and historian of science (receiving a Triple 1st), Nick was unable to find lasting happiness with either religion or reason (nor through pills, therapy, partying, wealth, success, or entrepreneurship either). Even though he was, and still is, a militant atheist, he finally discovered the life-changing benefits of ‘spiritual' enlightenment. But allergic to ‘woo-woo' weirdness he has spent years meticulously joining the dots between the scientific traditions and the wisdom traditions to form a rigorous life philosophy for the 25% of the USA and UK who say they are ‘spiritual but not religious'.  In his new book, Spiritual Atheist, Nick risks his reputation as a top advisor to leaders in companies like HSBC and to the UK and US government, by laying out this new life philosophy. He explains the genius of the scientific method for creating firm knowledge about our material world while suggesting that it was never designed to create firm and predictable knowledge about our inner world - our consciousness. Nick believes that the modern scientific project will fail until it fully accounts for our conscious experiences - the “secondary properties” that scientists from Galileo to Daniel Dennett have discounted as not really real. He goes further to suggest that science - especially the science of human beings - has reached a dead end and must have a quantum-style paradigm shift at its heart to account for an increasing number of ‘uncanny' phenomenon that it cannot explain: from the placebo effect to embodied cognition to near-death experiences, all empirically verified. Nick's ideas follows in the footsteps of titans of philosophy like Plato, Nietzsche, William James, and Alfred North Whitehead.  He draws on the ideas of modern thought leaders like Pierre Hadot, Charles Taylor, Thomas Kuhn, Bertrand Russell, Michel Foucault, Galen Strawson; and is inspired by the work of cutting-edge scientists like Rex Jung, Robin Carhart-Harris, Christoph Koch, and David Bohm. How to Connect with Nick? Website: http://switchonnow.com/ Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/switchonworld/ Twitter: @nickjankel Blog:https://switchonnow.com/magazine/ YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEdzCMVyPJBtqfkhwRJUUbg LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjankel/?originalSubdomain=uk Book on Amazon US: https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Atheist-Science-Radical-Philosophy/dp/1999731522/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1538215289&sr=8-1 Author's Page on Amazon US: https://www.amazon.com/Nick-Seneca-Jankel/e/B00L115YX0/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Book on Amazon AU:  https://www.amazon.com.au/Spiritual-Atheist-Science-Radical-Philosophy/dp/1999731522/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538163392&sr=8-1&keywords=Nick+Jankel ----more---- Get Connected with Dr. Vic Facebook: www.facebook.com/DrVicManzo Instagram: www.Instagram.com/DrVicManzo LinkedIn: www.LinkedIn.com/in/DrManzo YouTube: Bit.Ly/38QULv91   Purchase a Copy of Dr. Vic's Book at a Discount http://bit.ly/37GY4UK   Hire Dr. Vic as Your Mentor/Coach http://bit.ly/2F7zUpU   Email DrVic@EmpowerYourReality.com

This is a two-part series as I had the pleasure of interviewing Nick Jankel.  Nick shares his deep insights and wisdom that he wrote about in his book, "Spiritual Atheist."  For me, when I first saw his book, I was very curious to know what it was all about due to the title.  It is a great book and a great interview. Who is Nick Jankel? Nick Jankel has lectured at Yale & Oxford, advised the Prime Minister at No.10 Downing Street, been invited to Science FOO Camp run by Google and Nature Journal, contributed to The Economist and The Guardian, the BBC World Service (on the subject of Artificial Intelligence) and presented at The Science Of Consciousness conference.  He can inspire your listeners with his fresh ideas on science and engage them with his playful and warm manner as he shares profound thoughts in purposefully accessible ways. We are currently launching his new book Spiritual Atheist, which has been the #1 New Release for 5 weeks on Amazon! A Cambridge-educated scientist and historian of science (receiving a Triple 1st), Nick was unable to find lasting happiness with either religion or reason (nor through pills, therapy, partying, wealth, success, or entrepreneurship either). Even though he was, and still is, a militant atheist, he finally discovered the life-changing benefits of ‘spiritual' enlightenment. But allergic to ‘woo-woo' weirdness he has spent years meticulously joining the dots between the scientific traditions and the wisdom traditions to form a rigorous life philosophy for the 25% of the USA and UK who say they are ‘spiritual but not religious'.  In his new book, Spiritual Atheist, Nick risks his reputation as a top advisor to leaders in companies like HSBC and to the UK and US government, by laying out this new life philosophy. He explains the genius of the scientific method for creating firm knowledge about our material world while suggesting that it was never designed to create firm and predictable knowledge about our inner world - our consciousness. Nick believes that the modern scientific project will fail until it fully accounts for our conscious experiences - the “secondary properties” that scientists from Galileo to Daniel Dennett have discounted as not really real. He goes further to suggest that science - especially the science of human beings - has reached a dead end and must have a quantum-style paradigm shift at its heart to account for an increasing number of ‘uncanny' phenomenon that it cannot explain: from the placebo effect to embodied cognition to near-death experiences, all empirically verified. Nick's ideas follows in the footsteps of titans of philosophy like Plato, Nietzsche, William James, and Alfred North Whitehead.  He draws on the ideas of modern thought leaders like Pierre Hadot, Charles Taylor, Thomas Kuhn, Bertrand Russell, Michel Foucault, Galen Strawson; and is inspired by the work of cutting-edge scientists like Rex Jung, Robin Carhart-Harris, Christoph Koch, and David Bohm. How to Connect with Nick?  Website: http://switchonnow.com/ Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/switchonworld/ Twitter: @nickjankel Blog:https://switchonnow.com/magazine/ YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEdzCMVyPJBtqfkhwRJUUbg LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjankel/?originalSubdomain=uk Book on Amazon US: https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Atheist-Science-Radical-Philosophy/dp/1999731522/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1538215289&sr=8-1 Author's Page on Amazon US: https://www.amazon.com/Nick-Seneca-Jankel/e/B00L115YX0/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Book on Amazon AU:  https://www.amazon.com.au/Spiritual-Atheist-Science-Radical-Philosophy/dp/1999731522/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538163392&sr=8-1&keywords=Nick+Jankel ----more---- Get Connected with Dr. Vic Facebook: www.facebook.com/DrVicManzo Instagram: www.Instagram.com/DrVicManzo LinkedIn: www.LinkedIn.com/in/DrManzo YouTube: Bit.Ly/38QULv91   Purchase a Copy of Dr. Vic's Book at a Discount http://bit.ly/37GY4UK   Hire Dr. Vic as Your Mentor/Coach http://bit.ly/2F7zUpU   Email DrVic@EmpowerYourReality.com

Das folgende Gespräch handelt von drei aus sechsunddreißig Fragen, der Gewalttätigkeit, Freiheit gegen Willkür, Promiterror und „nudge, nudge, say no more!“ Es treten auf: Terry Gilliam, Graham Chapmans Asche, Karola Bloch, Galen Strawson, Jesus, und ein verblüffter Stalinist. Folge abspielen

Further information: www.thepanpsycast.com/audiobook. Twitter: www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Full Interviews: Daniel Dennett. A. C. Grayling. Rick Lewis. Steven Pinker. Galen Strawson.

Developments in Christian Thought: A Panpsycast Audiobook Introduction Part I Chapter I. The Person of Jesus Christ Chapter II. Knowledge of God Chapter III. Death and the Afterlife Chapter IV. Augustine’s Teaching on Human Nature Chapter V. Christian Moral Principles Chapter VI. Christian Moral Action Chapter VII. Liberation Theology and Marx Chapter VIII. Gender and Society Chapter IX. Gender and Theology Chapter X. Religious Pluralism and Society Chapter XI. Religious Pluralism and Theology Chapter XII. The Challenge of Secularism Part II Chapter XIII. Yujin Nagasawa on Jesus’ Miracles Chapter XIV. Daniel Hill on the Sensus Divinitatis Chapter XV. Thom Atkinson on Surviving Death Chapter XVI. Peter Adamson on Saint Augustine Chapter XVII. Joseph Shaw on Christian Moral Principles Chapter XVIII. Eric Metaxas on Dietrich Bonhoeffer Chapter XIX. Christopher Rowland on Liberation Theology Chapter XX. Alison Stone on Gender and Society Chapter XXI. Michael Wilcockson on Gender and Theology Chapter XXII. David Ford and Peter Ochs on The Scriptural Reasoning Movement Chapter XXIII. Tim Mawson on Religious Pluralism and Theology Chapter XIV. Daniel C. Dennett, A. C. Grayling, Rick Lewis, Galen Strawson and Steven Pinker on The Challenge of Secularism Conclusion Bibliography

Credits Created, Produced and Edited by Jack Symes. Researched, Written and Co-Hosted with Andrew Horton and Olly Marley. Guest staring co-host Annabel Borthwick. Music produced by Billy Pearce. Artwork by Charlotte Mudd.   Acknowledgements Most importantly, this project would not be possible without the support of Westhill Endowment and Culham St Gabriel's. We would like to extend our gratitude to both Westhill Endowment and Culham St Gabriel's, who have provided us with the means to produce this work and distribute it free of charge.  To find out more about Westhill Endowment you can visit www.westhillendowment.org. To find out more about Culham St Gabriel’s, you can find further information at www.cstg.org.uk. Thank you to all of our fans, in particular our patrons - Aaron Maharry, Ben Bartos, Brian Smith, Dallas Moroz, David LaJeunesse, Dewaine McBride, Gilberto Morbach, Graham, Jackson Day, John Breeden, Josef Nickerson, Josiah Thorngate, Kevin Cleary, Ludwig Raal, Majed Redha, Mizrob A., Mátyás Kendli, Natalia Rucińska, Raven Thomas, Sabina Pilchova, SamEricEdge, Shaun Barber, Steven Schoeneck and Sam Cameron. Thank you to everybody we interviewed in Part II of the audiobook, in order of appearance: Yujin Nagasawa, Daniel Hill, Thom Atkinson, Peter Adamson, Joseph Shaw, Eric Metaxas, Christopher Rowland, Alison Stone, Michael Wilcockson, David Ford, Peter Ochs, Tim Mawson, Daniel C. Dennett, A. C. Grayling, Rick Lewis, Galen Strawson and Steven Pinker. Thank you to every member of support staff for their assistance during the organisation stages of this project. In particular, thank you to everybody who hosted recordings, including Lancaster University, the University of Liverpool, the University of Birmingham, Cambridgeshire County Library, Oxford University, New College of the Humanities, Joseph Shaw, Thom Atkinson, Michael Wilcockson, Tim Mawson and Galen Strawson. Thank you to everybody at The Panpsycast for your continued support and hard work. Andrew Horton, Olly Marley, Greg Miller, Thom Atkinson, Annabel Borthwick, Phoebe Light and Emily-Rose Ogland – this project would not be possible without you. On a personal note, it’s been a pleasure to meet all of our guests, but most of all work closely with my friends Olly and Andrew. Thank you to my family for all of your support. In particular, thank you to Stevie, Samuel and Maddison for not murdering me throughout this project.  A final thank you to Sarah Hall and Daniel for their invaluable mentoring and support over the past few years and throughout this project. In their own ways, they have greatly influenced The Panpsycast, and therefore, if you (the listener) do not enjoy this audiobook, you know who to blame.  I would also like to apologise to my garden which has been neglected during the production of this audiobook. JS

Galen Strawson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Amongst countless papers in metaphysics and philosophy of mind, Galen is the author of Freedom and Belief, The Subject of Experience, Consciousness and Its Place in Nature and most recently, Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc.  The widespread impact of these works cannot be understated. In the words of Stephen Fry: Galen Strawson has a marvellous gift for untangling even the most complex lines in philosophical thinking and laying them straight. He writes with humour, clarity and always from a recognizably human place. Even the most complex and controversial areas in modern philosophy come into the light when you are in his benign company…. He opens windows and finds light-switches like no other philosopher writing today.

Galen Strawson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Amongst countless papers in metaphysics and philosophy of mind, Galen is the author of Freedom and Belief, The Subject of Experience, Consciousness and Its Place in Nature and most recently, Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc.  The widespread impact of these works cannot be understated. In the words of Stephen Fry: Galen Strawson has a marvellous gift for untangling even the most complex lines in philosophical thinking and laying them straight. He writes with humour, clarity and always from a recognizably human place. Even the most complex and controversial areas in modern philosophy come into the light when you are in his benign company…. He opens windows and finds light-switches like no other philosopher writing today.

We’re living through a mass extinction – which is also one of the most awesome opportunities for creativity the Earth has ever seen. In this talk that I gave at Burning Man 2017’s Palenque Norte Speaker Series, I give a short tour of Great Catastrophes of Natural History and show how each of them was also equally the advent of new life, intelligence, diversity, and richness. Studying how crisis is the mother of invention, it’s my hope that this talk will inspire you to see our turbulent, chaotic age as something to be celebrated. Learning what we can from evolution, we can shed new light on how to steer ourselves away from global ecological disaster – perhaps to even revel in our role as agents of epochal change in Earth’s amazing story.http://michaelgarfield.nethttp://youtube.com/michaelgarfield In this talk I discuss:• Going backward in order to go forward, the reclamation of the traditions and wisdom we have abandoned in our March of Progress;• The importance of situating ourselves and our moment in the larger context of Natural History;• The “Press-Pulse” Theory of mass extinction;• The emergent forms of life and evolutionary creativity ignored by nearly every conversation about how we’re “killing the planet”;• What The Great Oxygenation Event has to teach us about pollution and creativity as a response to danger;• Why philosopher Galen Strawson doesn’t believe in free will;• How the evolution of flowers was a huge catastrophe;• Richard Doyle’s update of the Stoned Ape Hypothesis and the role beauty and seduction have played in the evolution of consciousness and culture;• What the evolution of early birds has to teach us about the proliferating ecosystem of mobile devices;• Hopeful developments in the area of plastic-eating microbes and fungi, and using living machines to digest pollution;• The wilderness lives on in cities in the Anthropocene;• And how awesome the film Shin Gojira (2016) is.• PLUS: What if we are living in a giant galaxy-sized brain? Bruce Damer, Jake Kobrin, Mitch Mignano, and more speak up in the Q&A. Quotes:“The story of life can be told as a series of nested singularities, nested horizons of knowing and understanding.”“Sex is a far more effective R&D situation than clonal reproduction.”“Everything that we’re creating now, we want to treat it with love, and an understanding that it has a life and a destiny of its own, and it’s not something we control.”“Cultural realities are starting to seem less and less sufficient for describing and experiencing the full range of human potential.” Subscribe: Apple Podcasts / Stitcher / Spotify Join the Facebook Discussion GroupSupport this show and get cool stuff! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Galen Strawson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford deliverd the 2017 Isaiah Berlin Lecture at Wolfson College. The lecture was introduced by the College President, Hermione Lee. There occurred in the twentieth century the most remarkable episode in the whole history of ideas-the whole history of human thought. A number of thinkers denied the existence of something we know with certainty to exist: consciousness, conscious experience. Others held back from the Denial, but claimed that it might be true-a claim no less remarkable than the Denial. It is instructive to document some aspects of this episode, with particular reference to the rise of philosophical behaviourism, and the (connected) rise of a conception of naturalism that transformed the doctrine of materialism from a consciousness affirming-view into a consciousness-denying view. There is then a further task: to try to explain how it is possible that intelligent human beings should come to deny the existence of something that certainly exists.

What started off as just myself, Olly and Andrew (my co-hosts) talking philosophy at the University of Birmingham in the early episodes, has blossomed into something extraordinary. Bear in mind, that when this project started, we had never podcasted before. So, expect some poor audio quality, and some even poorer jokes in the first 15-16 episodes. Now, The Panpsycast team goes beyond the original three. Greg Miller, Emily Rose Ogland, Phoebe Light and Thom Atkinson have joined the club, and as a consequence, we've produced some amazing content.   From our humble beginnings, we have gone from strength to strength and looking back, we’ve been lucky enough to interview some of the biggest names in philosophy - A. C. Grayling, Daniel C. Dennett, Peter Singer, Yujin Nagasawa, Bence Nanay, Alison Stone, Christian B Miller, Rebecca Roache, Galen Strawson, Steven Pinker - and the list goes on.  Not only do we interview big thinkers, but we also release informal discussions focusing on a broad range of areas within philosophy - existentialism, moral philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion - there really is something for everyone, and we always pitch our discussions at non-specialists. Every episode, we want somebody who is completely unfamiliar with a particular topic or thinker, to come out the other end at the forefront of the contemporary discussion - but most importantly, come out of the other end with a smile on their face.  To quote William James, “Good-humor is a philosophic state of mind; it seems to say to Nature that we take her no more seriously than she takes us. I maintain that one should always talk of philosophy with a smile.” Thank you, we hope you enjoy the show.

In this edition of In Perspective we teamed up with Views and Brews for a discussion on various elements of and debates over artificial intelligence, discussing what it actually means to think; how knowledge of computers' inner-workings affect our understanding of the human brain; and the future of artificial intelligence. Listen back as KUT's Rebecca McInroy discusses all things A.I. with philosopher Dr. Galen Strawson, computer scientist Dr. Peter Stone and novelist-poet Dr. Louisa Hall.

A talk from Galen Strawson, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas. Structure considered just as such is an abstract, purely logico-mathematically characterisable phenomenon. It appears to follow that if a structure is concretely realised then it must be concretely realised by something that isn't itself just a matter of structure. So there must be more to concrete reality than structure. It's arguable, however, that a thing's structural nature must completely fix its non-structural nature in any world to which the notion of structure is generally applicable. Is this correct? If it is, what follows? Is Max Newman right when he says that 'it seems necessary to give up the 'structure-quality' division of knowledge in its strict form'.

Dave and Tamler start out talking about the new wave of skepticism about free will and moral responsibility in the popular press from people like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.  Neuroscience figures heavily in their arguments, but Dave and Tamler agree that neuroscientific data adds little of substance to the case other than telling us what we already know: human beings are natural biological entities.  Dave also accuses Tamler of being a hipster philosopher for abandoning a view once it got popular. Next, we talk about what kind freedom we need to have in order to deserve blame and punishment. Do we need to create ourselves out of the swamps of nothingness? Dave comes out as a Star Trek nerd and asks whether we're all, in the end, like Data the android.  They also wonder whether a belief in free will is all that's keeping us from having sex with our dogs.  Finally,  Dave grills Tamler about his new book on the differences in attitudes about free will and moral responsibility across cultures. After seeing how long they've been carrying on, they then agree to talk about all the stuff they left out in the next episode.    LinksCoyne, J.  “Why You Don’t Really Have Free Will.”Sam Harris. “Free Will.”Eddy Nahmias.  "Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?"Galen Strawson "Luck Swallows Everything."

In this episode, recorded on August 9, 2011, host George Ortega describes British philosopher Galen Strawson's refutation of free will, that is based on a logical extension of the principle that nothing can be the cause of itself..This item has files of the following types: Archive BitTorrent, Item Tile, Metadata, Ogg Vorbis, PNG, VBR MP3

Could everything that exists have experiences? Is there something that it is like to be an electron? This sounds unlikey on first hearing, but in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Galen Strawson argues in conversation with Nigel Warburton, that panpsychism is the best explanation of how things are. Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy.

Does everyone have a sense of self? What is it? Galen Strawson grapples with these questions in conversation with Nigel Warburton in the latest episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss whether religion can still be seen as a way of interpreting and judging good and evil in modern western civilisation and examines what the discoveries of Darwin and our knowledge of the true physiological nature and history of man has done for us in terms understanding our concepts of good and evil. As we entered the 20th century Nietzsche announced that God is dead. Was his hatred of Christianity a natural consequence of his belief in the unlimited possibility of mankind's self creation? If we have enough basic self confidence in our own selves, do we need God?Leszek Kolakowski and Galen Strawson map the current terrain of morality as perceived through philosophy, politics and Darwin and Christ.With Leszek Kolakowski, author and Professor of Philosophy, Oxford University; Galen Strawson, author and Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy, Jesus College, Oxford.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss whether religion can still be seen as a way of interpreting and judging good and evil in modern western civilisation and examines what the discoveries of Darwin and our knowledge of the true physiological nature and history of man has done for us in terms understanding our concepts of good and evil. As we entered the 20th century Nietzsche announced that God is dead. Was his hatred of Christianity a natural consequence of his belief in the unlimited possibility of mankind’s self creation? If we have enough basic self confidence in our own selves, do we need God?Leszek Kolakowski and Galen Strawson map the current terrain of morality as perceived through philosophy, politics and Darwin and Christ.With Leszek Kolakowski, author and Professor of Philosophy, Oxford University; Galen Strawson, author and Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy, Jesus College, Oxford.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss whether religion can still be seen as a way of interpreting and judging good and evil in modern western civilisation and examines what the discoveries of Darwin and our knowledge of the true physiological nature and history of man has done for us in terms understanding our concepts of good and evil. As we entered the 20th century Nietzsche announced that God is dead. Was his hatred of Christianity a natural consequence of his belief in the unlimited possibility of mankind’s self creation? If we have enough basic self confidence in our own selves, do we need God?Leszek Kolakowski and Galen Strawson map the current terrain of morality as perceived through philosophy, politics and Darwin and Christ.With Leszek Kolakowski, author and Professor of Philosophy, Oxford University; Galen Strawson, author and Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy, Jesus College, Oxford.