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

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more