Skip to main content

Why? - Philip Goff *****

It might seem a bit odd to review a popular philosophy book here, but Philip Goff's content overlaps sufficiently with cosmology that it's appropriate, and that content is fascinating, even though chances are you won't agree with Goff all the way.

The point of this book is to suggest that there is purpose behind the cosmos. The main evidence for this that Goff uses is the fine tuning of our universe that makes it suitable for life. Most cosmologists agree that this is odd, but many try to explain it using the idea of the multiverse. With some nifty mathematic-less probability (though he does invoke and describe Bayes theorem), Goff demonstrates convincingly that this argument does not hold up. (You can see some detail of how he shows that it's rubbish here.) 

We then take a look at a couple of alternative explanations - a deity, or the universe itself embodying a degree of purpose, which comes under the banner of panpsychism. I didn't honestly find the arguments in either of these sections (for and against) persuasive - but this doesn't stop them from being really interesting. In the God chapter, Goff attempts to logically dismiss the concept, but I found this no more convincing than good old Pascal's wager - people have been attempting to make logical arguments about deities ever since logic existed, and none have succeeded. 

Similarly, I find the argument for panpsychism thin - but it's still interesting to see it explained by one of its major protagonists. Goff also examines other possibilities from a designer that is not all-powerful to the simulation hypothesis. And he takes us into the mind-body problem, presenting three broad options: materialism (the default scientific view of the physical world being fundamental), panpsychism (his preferred option where consciousness is fundamental and the physical world emerges from this), and dualism (the default non-scientific view, where both the physical world and consciousness are fundamental). 

Goff rapidly dismisses dualism making use of Occam's razor, which felt wrong to me. The reality of our understanding of the universe generally requires a lot of 'it's more complicated than we thought' - I don't think Occam's razor is a good enough tool to dispose of an option in such a significant matter as the mind-body problem.

Finally (after a somewhat bizarre plea for the benefits of psychedelics, which I couldn't support), Goff gives us an appendix dealing with the concept that tax is theft. This did slightly emerge from the main text, but is probably best thought of as a separate entity - again, it's a fascinating exercise in thinking about something that brings together moral positions and a field as solid, worldly and sort-of scientific as economics.

It's a slim book and an enjoyable read. Each chapter has an introductory part that takes us into the topic and then a 'digging deeper' part, where Goff takes us through some of the key counter arguments. He suggests you can skip these if you find them too heavy going - but I'd strongly recommend reading them. I've said this book is enjoyable, and it is, but that doesn't mean it's a light read. You do have to think as you go - but the result is well worth the effort.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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