Skip to main content

Philip Goff - Five Way Interview

Philip Goff is Professor of Philosophy at Durham University. His research focuses on consciousness and the ultimate nature of reality. Goff is best known for defending panpsychism, the view that consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it. He is the author of  Why? the Purpose of the Universe (OUP, 2023).

Why philosophy?  

I love science, and try to stay as up to date as I can. But not every question can be answered with an experiment. Philosophy is about how all the different stories we tell about reality fit together. How does free will fit together with (near) deterministic physics? How do ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ fit with the value-less facts of science? How do invisible feeling and experiences mesh with the observable electro-chemical signalling of the brain? Experiments can inform our answers to these questions, but they can’t decisively settle them. 

Why this book?

So many people feel they have to fit into the dichotomy of either believing in the God of traditional Western religion or being a secular atheist. I was raised Catholic, but decided I didn’t believe in God when I was 14, and was happily on Team Secular for a long time. It wasn’t as though there was a God-shaped hole in my life, as far as I was aware. But over a long period of time, I came to think that both of these worldviews – the God hypothesis on the one hand, and the secular atheists belief in a purposeless universe on the other – were inadequate, both of them had things they can’t explain about reality. This led me to write this book defending cosmic purpose in the absence of the traditional God, and exploring its implications for human meaning and purpose.

Your demolition of the multiverse argument from fine tuning is impressive - why do you think we don’t see this argument cropping up in popular science?

I think it’s a typical case of academic talking to themselves. This objection to the inference from fine-tuning to a multiverse – that it commits the ‘inverse gambler’s fallacy’ – has been in the academic journals for decades. And yet nobody outside of academic philosophy knows about it, despite huge interest in this stuff. Moreover, believe it or not, nobody has ever linked this specific objection to the science of the multiverse, which is something I do in the book. So I’m really excited to get these ideas out to a broader audience. I’ve always thought fine-tuning needed explaining, and for a long time I thought the multiverse was the more plausible explanation. But I was slowly persuaded – dragging kicking and screaming, might be a better way of putting it – to these arguments from experts in probability theory that there’s some dodgy reasoning going on in the attempt to explain fine-tuning in terms of a multiverse. As a result I now think explaining fine-tuning has to involve cosmic purpose. That’s weird, and not how we expected science to turn out. But we should aside our cultural biases – both religious and secular – and just follow the evidence where it leads.

What’s next?

A rest. After that, I want to explore in more depth the under-explored challenge of how to make sense of the evolution of consciousness, which is one of the themes of the book. Natural selection just cares about behaviour, because it’s only behaviour that matters for survival. But recent developments in AI and robotics have revealed to us that you can have incredible complex information processing and behaviour in a system that doesn’t have any kind of conscious inner life. So why didn’t natural selection make survival mechanisms: complex biological robots that can mechanically track features of their environment and initiate complex survival behaviour, without being conscious? If we can’t answer that question, then we can’t explain why consciousness evolved at all.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I’m excited to see scientists and philosophers coming together to make progress on these big questions. Science and philosophy need each other, especially when it comes to things like consciousness where no one really knows yet what the rules of the game are. In my previous book Galileo’s Error, I explored how the father of modern science Galileo put consciousness outside of the domain of science, to pave the way for mathematical physics. That worked really well for last four hundred years, because it gave scientists a focused, manageable project. But if we now want to bring consciousness back into the domain of science, if we want to answer the ‘Why?’ questions as well as the ‘How?’ questions, we need to find ways for scientists to work hand in glove.

Image © Emma Goff


 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more