Very true. What we feel and how we see determines what we know. I also perceive physics only as a piece of the puzzle, while it is (implicitly) presented as the whole puzzle. Inspiring interview. Thanks.
I think we all have values. It's impossible to be conscious and embodied without having them. But I do struggle with the idea of an objective basis for values. Even if there's a God and God has values, those values are still the best ones God could come up with given God's experience. And that doesn't necessarily justify my having those same values. Not to mention that, how would I ever know what God's values are? By looking in Scripture? Which one? They don't agree on values. Via a mystical experience? How do I know the experience was really God telling me stuff or a creation of my subconscious mind? So yeah, a world without values leads to nihilism, but trying to figure out values is it's own kind of struggle. That said, I do feel like Kant's categorical imperative shines some light on how to come up with (or discover) values. Act in such a way that, if everyone acted that way, everyone would thrive as much as is possible.
Time and consciousness are inextricably intertwined. Consciousness cannot exist without time, and I suspect that nothing can exist without consciousness, including time. If something cannot be perceived by any consciousness (including God's if there is a God), never was perceived, and never will be, what would it even mean for it to exist?
When I first explored process thought (PT), I was in the middle of writing a book (never published because I had no spiritual credentials) on a theodicy assuming the omni-God. The theodicy imagined that it was the choice of preexisting spiritual beings to incarnate in a hard environment (our universe) to hone their (our) spiritual abilities amidst great difficulty. And PT suggests that God is not omni-powerful. I wasn't ready to hear that. Once I got that book out of my system, I was ready to consider non-omni ideas of God. So I read open and relational theology books (mainly Thomas Oord's) and loved them. I decided to get a doctorate in theology with Oord as my advisor, and he "made" me read Whitehead and Hartshorne and Cobb and others, and this time I loved the ideas. I love the idea of a non-omni God, and in fact I am now exploring (in my Substack and in another book-in-progress) the idea that God is evolving not just in knowledge and power, but in goodness too.
Sounds like your touching on the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because the gods approve of it or do the gods approve because it's good? I prefer the latter. How about you?
—How do I know the experience was really God telling me stuff or a creation of my subconscious mind?
Ay, there's the rub. Kierkegaard discusses the story of Abraham in Fear and Trembling and justifies Abraham's actions as a leap of faith that embraces the absurd. I guess I'm not so keen on embracing the absurd. Apparently neither was my mother, whom I used to torment with the question, "Would you kill me if God told you to do it?"
—If something cannot be perceived by any consciousness (including God's if there is a God), never was perceived, and never will be, what would it even mean for it to exist?
"Do you find believing “we are simply our brains” depressing? Does a world without values lead to nihilism?"
I don't find it depressing, and it might depend on what we mean by "nihilism". If moral antirealism is nihilism, then sure. But I think that's different from normative nihilism, the idea that morals are more than just not universal truths, they're useless. As a (roughly speaking) reductive physicalist, I think the rules of how we live and work together, while limited to a particular cultural and environmental context, are very useful.
"Has a particular philosopher or philosophy helped you navigate tough times?"
Epicureanism helps me, but I'll admit you have to be a convinced physicalist first.
"What is goodness?"
My shot: the state of being desirable for a particular observer or according to a particular set of values.
"What are your thoughts on time and its connection to consciousness?"
There's the block universe argument, that reality is just a timeless block structure. It's an interesting metaphysical idea that seems difficult to imagine ever being testable. But if it's true, then time is just an artifact of how the pattern we call "consciousness" relates to itself and its environment, what Einstein called a "stubbornly persistent illusion".
This seemed interesting from the title, but the subtitle already suggests I have nothing to learn from the post (except about human psychology). What a sad and unfortunate conclusion to draw from materialism!
I mean that sincerely, with compassion. I think it's not an uncommon consequence of the way materialism is taught and of what the secular West washed out with the bathwater, so to speak. It left a huge whole that needs to be filled.
I'm also sorry to hear about the depression. I've struggled hugely with that myself throughout my adult life. I was then attracted to anti-materialist views, and meditating on the beauty of consciousness. What's helped me immensely is Buddhist meditation and a kind of mystical experience that is too much to go into here. Perhaps surprisingly, this made me a convinced materialist and I now see more beauty in life than ever.
That said, I don't generally try to change anyone's mind, especially if they've found solace in their views. If they broadcast their views on substack, it's different though ;)
Sorry for writing and not reading properly. Massive reading and focus problems lol...
Definitely ethics have no sense in isolated selfs. Thus I will be interested in reading more about how our self can not be understood without our environment.
How time is key to describe conscience is both intuitive and also hard to build up. That's really a challenge because even half a century after Einstein theory and tons of sci fi films and stories. We keep ignoring this variable itself..
I'm just back from a vacation so I'm late on this, but I did want to comment that it's so sad to me how Americans don't get enough exposure to other non-religious belief systems and then end up finding physicalism so empty. It's only empty if you don't know where to look for how others have filled their lives with meaning. When I moved to England from America, I discovered a long and vibrant tradition of Humanism there that immediately felt like my kind of tribe. The Humanists UK podcast series "What I Believe" talks to lots of ordinary people who have filled their physicalist worldviews with meaning. That's a nice place to explore. For a quick summary, I was on the board of a local chapter of Humanists and helped them redo their website with a nice outline of these types of beliefs. See here:
When I first heard of Whitehead and process philosophy I thought that might be a pretty good fit for the ever-unfolding perspective of evolutionary philosophy, but I found the metaphysics to be far too speculative. Perhaps, Pedro, you and I could have some productive conversations about this.
What struck me here is how clearly you trace the link between metaphysics and lived experience. The idea that “we are simply our brains” sounds tidy on paper, but you show how it can spiral into depression, nihilism, or a sense of being cut off from life. I think you’re right that this isn’t just an abstract problem — it’s an ethical one, because how we frame consciousness shapes how we relate to others.
I was especially drawn to the way you press on “what is goodness?” as a foundational question. Too often it gets taken for granted, or brushed aside in favor of political or historical commitments, when in fact it underlies them all. Asking after the metaphysical grounds of justice seems not trivial, but vital.
And the Bergson line — perception being “in the things themselves” — feels radical but oddly intuitive once you sit with it. It resonates with what you said about time: consciousness as duration, as extension, as relation. It makes me think that maybe we haven’t even begun to take time seriously enough in how we understand mind.
Thanks for sharing this. It left me both unsettled and energized, which is probably what philosophy is supposed to do.
I deal with an adjacent-topic: Cognitive Narrative. Feel free to explore my substack.
Very true. What we feel and how we see determines what we know. I also perceive physics only as a piece of the puzzle, while it is (implicitly) presented as the whole puzzle. Inspiring interview. Thanks.
Great interview.
I think we all have values. It's impossible to be conscious and embodied without having them. But I do struggle with the idea of an objective basis for values. Even if there's a God and God has values, those values are still the best ones God could come up with given God's experience. And that doesn't necessarily justify my having those same values. Not to mention that, how would I ever know what God's values are? By looking in Scripture? Which one? They don't agree on values. Via a mystical experience? How do I know the experience was really God telling me stuff or a creation of my subconscious mind? So yeah, a world without values leads to nihilism, but trying to figure out values is it's own kind of struggle. That said, I do feel like Kant's categorical imperative shines some light on how to come up with (or discover) values. Act in such a way that, if everyone acted that way, everyone would thrive as much as is possible.
Time and consciousness are inextricably intertwined. Consciousness cannot exist without time, and I suspect that nothing can exist without consciousness, including time. If something cannot be perceived by any consciousness (including God's if there is a God), never was perceived, and never will be, what would it even mean for it to exist?
Process thought is great. I didn't like it the first time I gave it a try, but after a couple of decades and a second try, I love it.
When I first explored process thought (PT), I was in the middle of writing a book (never published because I had no spiritual credentials) on a theodicy assuming the omni-God. The theodicy imagined that it was the choice of preexisting spiritual beings to incarnate in a hard environment (our universe) to hone their (our) spiritual abilities amidst great difficulty. And PT suggests that God is not omni-powerful. I wasn't ready to hear that. Once I got that book out of my system, I was ready to consider non-omni ideas of God. So I read open and relational theology books (mainly Thomas Oord's) and loved them. I decided to get a doctorate in theology with Oord as my advisor, and he "made" me read Whitehead and Hartshorne and Cobb and others, and this time I loved the ideas. I love the idea of a non-omni God, and in fact I am now exploring (in my Substack and in another book-in-progress) the idea that God is evolving not just in knowledge and power, but in goodness too.
And I yours.
Hi Tim, thanks for commenting!
Sounds like your touching on the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because the gods approve of it or do the gods approve because it's good? I prefer the latter. How about you?
—How do I know the experience was really God telling me stuff or a creation of my subconscious mind?
Ay, there's the rub. Kierkegaard discusses the story of Abraham in Fear and Trembling and justifies Abraham's actions as a leap of faith that embraces the absurd. I guess I'm not so keen on embracing the absurd. Apparently neither was my mother, whom I used to torment with the question, "Would you kill me if God told you to do it?"
—If something cannot be perceived by any consciousness (including God's if there is a God), never was perceived, and never will be, what would it even mean for it to exist?
Great question!
I love the Euthyphro dialog! And yes, I agree solidly with you: the gods (or God) discern or discover what's good rather than dictating what's good.
Your question to your mother - that's hilarious! I love it.
Sartre probably said: ‘’mauvaise foi’’🙄🤷🏻♂️
Ha! Mais oui, bien sur! 👨🎨
"Do you find believing “we are simply our brains” depressing? Does a world without values lead to nihilism?"
I don't find it depressing, and it might depend on what we mean by "nihilism". If moral antirealism is nihilism, then sure. But I think that's different from normative nihilism, the idea that morals are more than just not universal truths, they're useless. As a (roughly speaking) reductive physicalist, I think the rules of how we live and work together, while limited to a particular cultural and environmental context, are very useful.
"Has a particular philosopher or philosophy helped you navigate tough times?"
Epicureanism helps me, but I'll admit you have to be a convinced physicalist first.
"What is goodness?"
My shot: the state of being desirable for a particular observer or according to a particular set of values.
"What are your thoughts on time and its connection to consciousness?"
There's the block universe argument, that reality is just a timeless block structure. It's an interesting metaphysical idea that seems difficult to imagine ever being testable. But if it's true, then time is just an artifact of how the pattern we call "consciousness" relates to itself and its environment, what Einstein called a "stubbornly persistent illusion".
Interesting about Epicureanism. I wouldn't have guessed, Mike!
You might find Pedro's post on Einstein and Bergson interesting: https://open.substack.com/pub/newanima/p/einstein-was-wrong-time-is-real?r=schg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This seemed interesting from the title, but the subtitle already suggests I have nothing to learn from the post (except about human psychology). What a sad and unfortunate conclusion to draw from materialism!
I mean that sincerely, with compassion. I think it's not an uncommon consequence of the way materialism is taught and of what the secular West washed out with the bathwater, so to speak. It left a huge whole that needs to be filled.
I'm also sorry to hear about the depression. I've struggled hugely with that myself throughout my adult life. I was then attracted to anti-materialist views, and meditating on the beauty of consciousness. What's helped me immensely is Buddhist meditation and a kind of mystical experience that is too much to go into here. Perhaps surprisingly, this made me a convinced materialist and I now see more beauty in life than ever.
That said, I don't generally try to change anyone's mind, especially if they've found solace in their views. If they broadcast their views on substack, it's different though ;)
Sorry for writing and not reading properly. Massive reading and focus problems lol...
Definitely ethics have no sense in isolated selfs. Thus I will be interested in reading more about how our self can not be understood without our environment.
How time is key to describe conscience is both intuitive and also hard to build up. That's really a challenge because even half a century after Einstein theory and tons of sci fi films and stories. We keep ignoring this variable itself..
Tina, thanks for sharing
Glad you enjoyed the interview. Totally agree on time…it’s challenging to wrap our minds around, yet fundamental to, well, everything.
I'm just back from a vacation so I'm late on this, but I did want to comment that it's so sad to me how Americans don't get enough exposure to other non-religious belief systems and then end up finding physicalism so empty. It's only empty if you don't know where to look for how others have filled their lives with meaning. When I moved to England from America, I discovered a long and vibrant tradition of Humanism there that immediately felt like my kind of tribe. The Humanists UK podcast series "What I Believe" talks to lots of ordinary people who have filled their physicalist worldviews with meaning. That's a nice place to explore. For a quick summary, I was on the board of a local chapter of Humanists and helped them redo their website with a nice outline of these types of beliefs. See here:
https://www.northeast-humanists.org.uk/humanism.html
That is a big group to look into, but I have a personal website illustrating this in much more detail, based on what I call Evolutionary Philosophy.
https://www.evphil.com
When I first heard of Whitehead and process philosophy I thought that might be a pretty good fit for the ever-unfolding perspective of evolutionary philosophy, but I found the metaphysics to be far too speculative. Perhaps, Pedro, you and I could have some productive conversations about this.
What struck me here is how clearly you trace the link between metaphysics and lived experience. The idea that “we are simply our brains” sounds tidy on paper, but you show how it can spiral into depression, nihilism, or a sense of being cut off from life. I think you’re right that this isn’t just an abstract problem — it’s an ethical one, because how we frame consciousness shapes how we relate to others.
I was especially drawn to the way you press on “what is goodness?” as a foundational question. Too often it gets taken for granted, or brushed aside in favor of political or historical commitments, when in fact it underlies them all. Asking after the metaphysical grounds of justice seems not trivial, but vital.
And the Bergson line — perception being “in the things themselves” — feels radical but oddly intuitive once you sit with it. It resonates with what you said about time: consciousness as duration, as extension, as relation. It makes me think that maybe we haven’t even begun to take time seriously enough in how we understand mind.
Thanks for sharing this. It left me both unsettled and energized, which is probably what philosophy is supposed to do.
I deal with an adjacent-topic: Cognitive Narrative. Feel free to explore my substack.