Materialism is dead. There are simply too many questions left unanswered after years of studying the brain. Now, people are scrambling for a new way to understand the mind-body relationship. Cartesian dualism has become a whipping boy in philosophy, but it has advantages over the alternatives. Dr. Joshua Farris discusses Cartesianism and philosophy with Dr. Michael Egnor.

Podcast description: Materialism is dead. There are simply too many questions left unanswered after years of studying the brain. Now, people are scrambling for a new way to understand the mind-body relationship. Cartesian dualism has become a whipping boy in philosophy, but it has advantages over the alternatives. Dr. Joshua Farris discusses Cartesianism and philosophy with Dr. Michael Egnor.

  • CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn [any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Thanks for your insight. I read both Real Patterns and Rainforest Realism a few years ago which is what drew me to this line of thinking. I used to love to read about quantum mechanics but I definitely would not claim an undergraduate's understanding, so maybe I should pick up a textbook or something first. I do have a friend who is a tenured physics professor in that field, so maybe I can throw a question or two his way if I get stuck lol.

    Insofar as it’s a fleshing out of a detailed theory that’s compatible with OSR that demonstrates how to understand the “it’s patterns all the way down” claim in a way that doesn’t require any substrate–that is, doesn’t require anything for the patterns to “be patterns in”–it’s a great contribution to the literature.

    I'm willing to endorse that. As an amateur, when I stumbled on that hypothesis, it was hard not to feel the little satisfaction of everything being wrapped up neatly with a bow, but I'm not sure that's always a feeling to trust. A lot of the earth-shattering ideas that have rewired my thinking have landed chaotically in uneven chunks.

    • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      You can certainly give it a try and see if you hit a wall. If you felt like you followed the Ross and Dennett papers, and also feel like you grok Tegmark, you'll almost certainly get quite a bit out of the book. This philosophy of complex systems stuff is my specialty, so feel free to give a shout if you have questions, too.

      As an amateur, when I stumbled on that hypothesis, it was hard not to feel the little satisfaction of everything being wrapped up neatly with a bow, but I’m not sure that’s always a feeling to trust

      This is a very important insight. I think both amateurs and professionals sometimes over-estimate the value/importance of "beauty" or "parsimony" in determining what's true. Hold on to that skepticism.

      • CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I should correct that I didn't actually read Tegmark, but the Ross and Dennett papers were easy enough. I'll let you know if I have questions when I finally do pick it up!