Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part III of III)’, in which we focus on arguments against the sanctity of privacy.

I was sold a story about the modern world. I was told that I could connect with friends for free and that I could have everything conveniently tailored to my tastes. I was also promised I’d be kept safe from those who wished to attack me and my values. All in all, I was told I would be empowered to live my life as I saw fit.

In time, I began to hear another story. I started to hear that what I had shared with friends was actually a product that social media sold to others. I was told that some of my wants and desires were, in reality, the wants and desires of people whom I had never met. I was made aware that the promise of safety came at a cost which appears never to have been proven worthwhile.

The power, as it turns out, was not really with me – it was with those who sold me the original story. The choices I made when I knew no better helped them understand me and others like me better. They could do this because they were watching. When I wanted them to stop watching, they told me that if I had nothing to hide, then I had nothing to fear.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part II - Privacy in Peril)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part II of III)’, where we’ll be discussing the value of data and threats to our privacy.

I was sold a story about the modern world. I was told that I could connect with friends for free and that I could have everything conveniently tailored to my tastes. I was also promised I’d be kept safe from those who wished to attack me and my values. All in all, I was told I would be empowered to live my life as I saw fit.

In time, I began to hear another story. I started to hear that what I had shared with friends was actually a product that social media sold to others. I was told that some of my wants and desires were, in reality, the wants and desires of people whom I had never met. I was made aware that the promise of safety came at a cost which appears never to have been proven worthwhile.

The power, as it turns out, was not really with me – it was with those who sold me the original story. The choices I made when I knew no better helped them understand me and others like me better. They could do this because they were watching. When I wanted them to stop watching, they told me that if I had nothing to hide, then I had nothing to fear.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part I - Privacy is Power)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part I of III)’, where we’ll be discussing the nature and power of privacy.

I was sold a story about the modern world. I was told that I could connect with friends for free and that I could have everything conveniently tailored to my tastes. I was also promised I’d be kept safe from those who wished to attack me and my values. All in all, I was told I would be empowered to live my life as I saw fit.

In time, I began to hear another story. I started to hear that what I had shared with friends was actually a product that social media sold to others. I was told that some of my wants and desires were, in reality, the wants and desires of people whom I had never met. I was made aware that the promise of safety came at a cost which appears never to have been proven worthwhile.

The power, as it turns out, was not really with me – it was with those who sold me the original story. The choices I made when I knew no better helped them understand me and others like me better. They could do this because they were watching. When I wanted them to stop watching, they told me that if I had nothing to hide, then I had nothing to fear.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 115, ‘Intellectual Seemings’ with Laura Gow (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 115 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion on sensory phenomenology and the nature of consciousness.

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/allows you to see through it

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Everything is Clear

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 115, ‘Intellectual Seemings’ with Laura Gow (Part I - Everything is Clear)

Welcome to ‘Episode 115 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the nature of sensory experience with Laura Gow.

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/allows you to see through it

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Everything is Clear

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 114, ‘Changing Minds’ with Robin McKenna (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 114 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing science communication with Robin McKenna.

‘630 million threatened by rising seas!’; ‘Study blames climate change for 37% of worldwide heat deaths!’; ‘Fossil fuels must stay underground!’

Despite the headlines and 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activity is one of the major causes of climate change, just seven in ten Americans believe that climate change is real and only six in ten consider human activity to be a leading cause. As a survey of beliefs, these statistics are concerning. The bigger problem, however, is that they aren’t held in a vacuum, but are formed within and contribute to the functioning of democratic societies. 

If we want a genuinely democratic state, how can we establish public policies – informed by our very best science – if a sizable minority of people reject the science? What can be done, descriptively and ethically, to change the minds of those who hold (what experts might consider) unreasonable beliefs?

According to Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, these questions demonstrate the role and importance of contemporary epistemology. Drawing from the latest empirical research on how we form beliefs and how and why we change our minds, McKenna argues that we can improve our epistemic situations by creating environments in which we are more likely to form beliefs that align with the science.

To bring about a better world, people must recognise that their beliefs aren’t formed in an ideal and impartial state. To protect democracy and the natural world, says McKenna, we must combat misinformation and political bias through ethical and effective marketing.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/changes your mind

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Communicating Science

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 114, ‘Changing Minds’ with Robin McKenna (Part I - Communicating Science)

Welcome to ‘Episode 114 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing science communication with Robin McKenna.

‘630 million threatened by rising seas!’; ‘Study blames climate change for 37% of worldwide heat deaths!’; ‘Fossil fuels must stay underground!’

Despite the headlines and 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activity is one of the major causes of climate change, just seven in ten Americans believe that climate change is real and only six in ten consider human activity to be a leading cause. As a survey of beliefs, these statistics are concerning. The bigger problem, however, is that they aren’t held in a vacuum, but are formed within and contribute to the functioning of democratic societies. 

If we want a genuinely democratic state, how can we establish public policies – informed by our very best science – if a sizable minority of people reject the science? What can be done, descriptively and ethically, to change the minds of those who hold (what experts might consider) unreasonable beliefs?

According to Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, these questions demonstrate the role and importance of contemporary epistemology. Drawing from the latest empirical research on how we form beliefs and how and why we change our minds, McKenna argues that we can improve our epistemic situations by creating environments in which we are more likely to form beliefs that align with the science.

To bring about a better world, people must recognise that their beliefs aren’t formed in an ideal and impartial state. To protect democracy and the natural world, says McKenna, we must combat misinformation and political bias through ethical and effective marketing.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/changes your mind

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Communicating Science

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing Hauskeller’s argument against transhumanist approaches to animals.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/destroys its nature

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part I - How to Become a Post-Dog)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Michael Hauskeller.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/destroys its nature

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 104, ‘Art and the Future’ with Vid Simoniti (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 104 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be analysing Simoniti’s view that art offers something unique to political discourse.

If we want to improve our public discourse, we must aim to be as objective as possible. When we raise our consciousness and work towards clearing our minds of personal interests, political affiliations, and the sophistry of art, we grow closer to rationality and knowledge. Art, on the other hand, is nothing more than the overly excited offspring of objectivity: films, paintings, music, and dance contribute nothing unique to our understanding of the world. At worst, art muddies the waters of our discourse; at best, it merely reflects the insights of political philosophy and science.

Opposing this view – and championing the cognitive advantages of artworks as political discourse – is Dr Vid Simoniti, Lecturer in Philosophy of Art at the University of Liverpool. As well as being a rising star in the worlds of academic philosophy and art history, Dr Simoniti’s work as a BBC New Generation Thinker – and his collaborations with public-facing projects such as the Liverpool bi-annual – is bringing conversations about art and philosophy into the public square.

When we enjoy a play at the theatre, rock our heads to a song on the radio, or wiggle the joysticks on our PlayStation controllers: does it leave us more attuned to how the world is? For Simoniti, in the context of art as political discourse, the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/offers something unique

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 104, ‘Art and the Future’ with Vid Simoniti (Part I - Art as Political Discourse)

Welcome to ‘Episode 104 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the nature of political art with Vid Simoniti.

If we want to improve our public discourse, we must aim to be as objective as possible. When we raise our consciousness and work towards clearing our minds of personal interests, political affiliations, and the sophistry of art, we grow closer to rationality and knowledge. Art, on the other hand, is nothing more than the overly excited offspring of objectivity: films, paintings, music, and dance contribute nothing unique to our understanding of the world. At worst, art muddies the waters of our discourse; at best, it merely reflects the insights of political philosophy and science.

Opposing this view – and championing the cognitive advantages of artworks as political discourse – is Dr Vid Simoniti, Lecturer in Philosophy of Art at the University of Liverpool. As well as being a rising star in the worlds of academic philosophy and art history, Dr Simoniti’s work as a BBC New Generation Thinker – and his collaborations with public-facing projects such as the Liverpool bi-annual – is bringing conversations about art and philosophy into the public square.

When we enjoy a play at the theatre, rock our heads to a song on the radio, or wiggle the joysticks on our PlayStation controllers: does it leave us more attuned to how the world is? For Simoniti, in the context of art as political discourse, the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/offers something unique

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 103, 'Nudges' with Thomas Schramme (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 103 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion of public health nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme.

Given the choice, who wouldn’t increase the balance in their bank account, switch into a fit and healthy body, find themselves in a meaningful career, and cultivate happiness and love in their relationships? These are preferences we all share, but few of us achieve them. Perhaps we could, if only we made better choices. We all want to make better decisions – the salad over the burger, the restful night’s sleep over ‘one more episode’ – yet we continue to succumb to our desires. Perhaps we need some help: maybe we need something to nudge us in the right direction?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the philosophy of nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme. Chair of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, Thomas’s research focuses on moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of health and medicine. With over one hundred publications and heading several innovative projects – including ‘How Does it Feel? Interpersonal Understanding and Affective Empathy’ – Professor Schramme is not only an expert in his field but always communicates his ideas through accessible and engaging prose.

As we’ll find in this interview, Schramme challenges some of the most prominent ideas in contemporary politics and psychology. According to Daniel Kehneman, nudges ‘have changed the world’… but, asks Schramme, do they always change it for the better?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/nudges you in the 'right' direction

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 103, 'Nudges' with Thomas Schramme (Part I - Public Health)

Welcome to ‘Episode 103 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the philosophy of health nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme.

Given the choice, who wouldn’t increase the balance in their bank account, switch into a fit and healthy body, find themselves in a meaningful career, and cultivate happiness and love in their relationships? These are preferences we all share, but few of us achieve them. Perhaps we could, if only we made better choices. We all want to make better decisions – the salad over the burger, the restful night’s sleep over ‘one more episode’ – yet we continue to succumb to our desires. Perhaps we need some help: maybe we need something to nudge us in the right direction?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the philosophy of nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme. Chair of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, Thomas’s research focuses on moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of health and medicine. With over one hundred publications and heading several innovative projects – including ‘How Does it Feel? Interpersonal Understanding and Affective Empathy’ – Professor Schramme is not only an expert in his field but always communicates his ideas through accessible and engaging prose.

As we’ll find in this interview, Schramme challenges some of the most prominent ideas in contemporary politics and psychology. According to Daniel Kehneman, nudges ‘have changed the world’… but, asks Schramme, do they always change it for the better?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/nudges you in the 'right' direction

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion