Thank you again for the conversations you entertain on your podcast with super interesting people at the cutting edge of science, philosophy etc building connections and seeding new ideas. Cheers
I find it incredible how your podcast guests at the forefront of science and philosophy consistently align with my own theory of mind. Science is indeed moving rapidly toward monistic panpsychism - far faster than I anticipated when I started publishing my perspective on here.
Thank you, Curt, for sharing this with us! 😊
If you don't mind, I'd like to share an article I wrote last November that remarkably parallels what Michael discusses. The overlap is truly astonishing.
Love the discussion. Let me add that semiosis is the tool with which living systems (even single cells) interface with their environments. As Ciaucina says, the organism is constantly interacting with new information. It has to use an old "tool" to respond to that sign vehicle, which may or may not be appropriate.
Great interview. Do you think what Levin describes of consciousness as being everywhere, or prior (and definitely not emerging, because at what point does it suddenly become?) is like what Iain McGilchrist is saying?
This conversation is a bewildering kaleidoscope. I think there are very many interesting points, but no joined up theory. In particular, there are assertions that physicalism is not the way, and yet a physicalist basis pervades the whole thing. I like the early point, that there is a problem of academic specialization (especially in science) today. I’d say this has been well explored in much of Bronowski’s writing (note: drastically underrated academic precisely because of his interdisciplinary ideology), in Ortega’s “The Revolt of the Masses), and especially in Schrödinger’s introductory apologia to “What Is Life?”:
“We feel clearly that we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole; but, on the other hand, it has become next to impossible for a single mind fully to command more than a small specialized portion of it.
I can see no other escape from this dilemma (lest our true aim be lost for ever) than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them - and at the risk of making fools of ourselves. So much for my apology.”
(That could be your manifesto, Kurt.)
Instructively, “What Is Life?” was savaged by the outraged specialists, the microbiologists Pauling and Perutz, after Schrödinger had died and could not reply. In particular, they accused him of failing to consult experts on thermodynamics. Biter bit! Schrödinger was himself the author of a postgrad textbook on thermodynamics.
Anyway, the conversation in the video is many questions (and many metaphors) rather than a focused theory.
Thank you again for the conversations you entertain on your podcast with super interesting people at the cutting edge of science, philosophy etc building connections and seeding new ideas. Cheers
Thank you!
Very insightful interviews.
Thank you
I find it incredible how your podcast guests at the forefront of science and philosophy consistently align with my own theory of mind. Science is indeed moving rapidly toward monistic panpsychism - far faster than I anticipated when I started publishing my perspective on here.
Thank you, Curt, for sharing this with us! 😊
If you don't mind, I'd like to share an article I wrote last November that remarkably parallels what Michael discusses. The overlap is truly astonishing.
https://leftbrainmystic.substack.com/p/panpsychism-and-god-why-the-universe
Love the discussion. Let me add that semiosis is the tool with which living systems (even single cells) interface with their environments. As Ciaucina says, the organism is constantly interacting with new information. It has to use an old "tool" to respond to that sign vehicle, which may or may not be appropriate.
Great interview. Do you think what Levin describes of consciousness as being everywhere, or prior (and definitely not emerging, because at what point does it suddenly become?) is like what Iain McGilchrist is saying?
This conversation is a bewildering kaleidoscope. I think there are very many interesting points, but no joined up theory. In particular, there are assertions that physicalism is not the way, and yet a physicalist basis pervades the whole thing. I like the early point, that there is a problem of academic specialization (especially in science) today. I’d say this has been well explored in much of Bronowski’s writing (note: drastically underrated academic precisely because of his interdisciplinary ideology), in Ortega’s “The Revolt of the Masses), and especially in Schrödinger’s introductory apologia to “What Is Life?”:
“We feel clearly that we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole; but, on the other hand, it has become next to impossible for a single mind fully to command more than a small specialized portion of it.
I can see no other escape from this dilemma (lest our true aim be lost for ever) than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them - and at the risk of making fools of ourselves. So much for my apology.”
(That could be your manifesto, Kurt.)
Instructively, “What Is Life?” was savaged by the outraged specialists, the microbiologists Pauling and Perutz, after Schrödinger had died and could not reply. In particular, they accused him of failing to consult experts on thermodynamics. Biter bit! Schrödinger was himself the author of a postgrad textbook on thermodynamics.
Anyway, the conversation in the video is many questions (and many metaphors) rather than a focused theory.
Which "things" in particular? The "thoughts have thoughts" part or something else?
You are cool