Walden Pod

Many leaders in the skeptic community have proven themselves to be untrustworthy sources of information on the topics they speak about. They’ve misled me often about what others believe and why. Moreover, genuine skepticism seems to be far less important to the skeptic community than the kind of conclusions one comes to. Failure to adopt the required list of beliefs disqualifies one from being a real skeptic, it would seem. In today’s episode, I talk about how my atheism caused me to gravitate towards the skeptic community, and how the same subject caused me to drift away. We also discuss how skeptics mishandle the subjects of theism, parapsychology, the JFK assassination, 9/11, and aliens.
For the record, this should not be seen as a comprehensive treatment of the topics raised (e.g. conspiracy theories). My framework was the following: Skeptics told me conspiracy theorists believed X for reason Y, but they were often wrong on both counts. I used a few examples, but I wasn’t aiming to provide a full account of what 9/11 truthers believe, or what alien abductees think, nor was I trying to defend a rejection of the Warren Commission. I especially shied away from that last topic, since it’s a bit different from the others for me. In the case of the JFK assassination, I’m more solidly on the side of the conspiracy theorists. Along with the majority of Americans, I don’t accept the Warren Commission.
Watch on YouTube

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Counter Apologetics here

Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here

Transcript

Twitter @waldenpod 

Linktree


For a more accurate picture of what these common skeptic targets believe and why:

/ JFK
Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass /or/ JFK: Destiny Betrayed [longer version of same doc] 

Mark Lane interviewed on JFK assassination (1992) 

/ 9/11
Three-part article in CovertAction Magazine - Peter Dale Scott, Aaron Good, Ben Howard
The Road to 9/11 (University of California Press) Peter Dale Scott 

/ Theism

Kenny Pierce defends theism against Graham Oppy (Dialogue) 

Joshua Rasmussen defends theism against Felipe Leon (Dialogue) 

/ Parapsychology 
Mitch Horowitz: A parapsychologist’s take on James Randi

/ Aliens
Nick Pope w/ Michael Shermer on UAPs and UFOs
Avi Loeb w/ Michael Shermer on alien life and oumuamua 

I’m joined by philosopher Luke Roelofs to discuss the combination problem for panpsychism, split brain cases, vagueness arguments, illusionism, mental privacy, the general and special composition question, mereological nihilism and universalism, and many other topics related to consciousness and composite subjectivity.

Watch on YouTube

Combining Minds: How to Think About Composite Subjectivity (Oxford University Press)

Amodal Mind Perception: Combining Inferentialism and Perceptualism

Luke’s website

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Counter Apologetics here

Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here

Music by ichika Nito and used with permission.

Twitter @waldenpod @OnPanpsychism

linktr.ee/emersongreen

I'm joined by Scott Clifton (Theoretical Bullshit) to discuss free will skepticism, compatibilism, moral responsibility, revenge, and killing coyotes.

Video version - Is free will an illusion? 

Scott's channel 

Follow me @waldenpod and TBS @TheoreticalBS

Consider supporting Walden Pod here or Counter Apologetics here

linktr.ee/emersongreen

I respond to Alex O'Connor's arguments against compatibilism, the view that there is no real conflict between determinism and free will. Is free will skepticism the better view, as Alex claims? Will the British ever learn their lesson?

CosmicSkeptic - Compatibilism Debunked

Subscribe on YouTube here

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

Consider supporting Walden Pod on Patreon here or Counter Apologetics here 

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism 

linktr.ee/emersongreen

After listening to Very Bad Wizards' new episode about panpsychism, I hit record and commented on a few clips that stood out to me.

Subscribe on YouTube here

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Counter Apologetics here

An interesting article on panpsychist history by Joe Zadeh

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. In other words, a compatibilist is someone who doesn’t have a quarrel with using the term “free will” and who doesn’t think we need to run around with our hair on fire if determinism turns out to be true. By my lights, free will skeptics and libertarians seem to be entirely wrong about the dramatic consequences that would follow from not possessing libertarian freedom. 
As you may have gathered, I’ve finally migrated from the free will skeptic camp over to the compatibilist camp. Years ago, learning about determinism and moral luck for the first time rocked my world. But as the dust settled, I wondered if I had been too quick to reject the entire notion of free will. How much does it matter that we don’t have libertarian free will? How much has actually changed? Is our ordinary sense of free will really unsalvageable?

Consider supporting the show

Subscribe on YouTube here

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

Transcript

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Can we be ultimately responsible for what we do? No one denies that we can be the proximate cause of our actions. I made this episode because I wanted to. But being the proximate cause of an action is compatible with determinism – no determinist in their right mind would deny that I made this episode because I wanted to. So is there a deeper sense of responsibility that can be attributed to human beings? One which absolves God, the world, ancestors, luck, and society of what we choose to do?
This deeper kind of responsibility, which Nietzsche disparagingly called “‘freedom of the will’ in the superlative metaphysical sense,” and which is often ascribed to human beings by the religious, arguably requires one to be causa sui – to be the ultimate cause of oneself. Since this is impossible, we can be sure that we do not possess the kind of responsibility that so many seem convinced we have. You can’t be radically self-creating in a way that gets you beyond a compatibilist notion of responsibility.
It’s unclear whether our lack of ultimate responsibility for our actions is a problem for libertarian free will. Do libertarians unanimously impute this degree of responsibility to humans? No – some do, some don’t. Regardless, the attacks on free will “in the superlative metaphysical sense” from Nietzsche and Strawson convincingly show that our responsibility for our actions is quite limited.
Galen Strawson - Your Move: The Maze of Free Will
Tamler Sommers & Galen Strawson - You cannot make yourself the way that you are
The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast - The Galen Strawson Interview

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here

Subscribe on YouTube here

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

linktr.ee/emersongreen

"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for ‘freedom of the will’ in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Münchhausen’s audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness."
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, sec. 21 (tr. W. Kaufmann)

I’m joined today by Jack Symes, editor of the new book, Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind. Jack is a Teacher and Researcher of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, UK and is also the co-host of The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast.
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychismFollow Jack on Twitter @_JackSymes @ThePanpsycast

Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind

Support on Patreon here

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

linktr.ee/emersongreen

/ timestamps /

00:00 Introduction to the book

15:52 The construction problem 

20:23 Why philosophy of mind? Why not just neuroscience?

28:28 Does Emerson misrepresent illusionism?

38:11 The terminological mess in philmind

46:21 Different forms of panpsychism

52:20 Illusionism redux: the metaproblem of consciousness

1:01:53 Practical implications of illusionism

1:14:58 Podcasting

1:18:55 Practical implications of panpsychism

1:41:37 Paganism and panpsychism

1:52:26 Pantheism

1:55:48 Panpsycast stories

2:02:05 LIVE SHOW

2:03:13 Parting thoughts

For the full episode, and access to other bonus episodes, subscribe at patreon.com/waldenpod

How can one reconcile the reality of mental causation with the accuracy of “the core theory,” which Sean Carroll hails as explaining all of everyday life? Contrary to Carroll’s intention, his proclamation that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood is one of the factors that lead some to adopt Russellian panpsychism. (This episode was recorded as a video, which is available to patrons.)

Is a brain necessary for experience? Do we have any good reason to limit the attribution of experience to creatures with complex nervous systems? Actually, no. Some materialists claim that consciousness can only exist in brains–sound reasoning, neuroscience, and physics all point in the same direction. We take a closer look at the reasoning that underlies the claim that complex nervous systems are necessary for experience.
A quick note on terminology: In this episode, I use physicalism and materialism interchangeably. And by “consciousness,” I’m referring to subjective experience: the what-it’s-like of consciousness. I try to stick to “experience” for clarity, but when I say “consciousness,” or “mind,” unless otherwise specified, experience is what I mean.
Swinburne quote
Robert Epstein - Your brain is not a computer

Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes - Panpsychism: 3 Reasons Why Our World is Brimming with Sentience

YouTube Channel

patreon.com/waldenpod

linktr.ee/emersongreen