Episode 84, The Patricia Churchland Interview (Part II - The Conscience)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 84 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the origins of our moral intuitions with Patricia Churchland.

Resting on our shoulders is the most complex object in the known universe: 86 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others. From Plato to Descartes, to the modern-day, philosophers have largely been ignorant of the workings of the brain, despite many questions in philosophy seeming to be intimately linked with its nature. Questions like: What are the origins of our moral intuitions, our conscience? What is the nature of decision-making? And how does the brain produce consciousness? 

Following the recent upsurge of interest and research into neuroscience (reaching full steam in the 1970s), Patricia Churchland describes the emergence of neurophilosophy as ‘inevitable’, coining the term in her now classic book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain in 1986. Alongside Neurophilosophy, Patricia Churchland is best known for her books Touching a Nerve, Braintrust, and most recently Conscience, which (together with hundreds of other publications, interviews, public talks, and awards) have led her to be considered one of, if not the, world’s leading neurophilosopher. 

Currently Professor Emerita in Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, Patricia Churchland has knocked down the wall between science and philosophy, inspiring a new wave of thinking about life’s most challenging questions.

For some, however, the wall was there for a reason: questions of philosophy should not be confused with questions of science. After all, what can neuroscience tell us about the origin of consciousness or the nature of morality? Our topics for this episode...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/hornswoggles you into a humdinger

Contents

Part I. The Hornswoggle Problem

Part II. The Conscience

Episode 84, The Patricia Churchland Interview (Part I - The Hornswoggle Problem)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 84 (Part I of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the problem of consciousness with Patricia Churchland.

Resting on our shoulders is the most complex object in the known universe: 86 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others. From Plato to Descartes, to the modern-day, philosophers have largely been ignorant of the workings of the brain, despite many questions in philosophy seeming to be intimately linked with its nature. Questions like: What are the origins of our moral intuitions, our conscience? What is the nature of decision-making? And how does the brain produce consciousness? 

Following the recent upsurge of interest and research into neuroscience (reaching full steam in the 1970s), Patricia Churchland describes the emergence of neurophilosophy as ‘inevitable’, coining the term in her now classic book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain in 1986. Alongside Neurophilosophy, Patricia Churchland is best known for her books Touching a Nerve, Braintrust, and most recently Conscience, which (together with hundreds of other publications, interviews, public talks, and awards) have led her to be considered one of, if not the, world’s leading neurophilosopher. 

Currently Professor Emerita in Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, Patricia Churchland has knocked down the wall between science and philosophy, inspiring a new wave of thinking about life’s most challenging questions.

For some, however, the wall was there for a reason: questions of philosophy should not be confused with questions of science. After all, what can neuroscience tell us about the origin of consciousness or the nature of morality? Our topics for this episode...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/hornswoggles you into a humdinger

Contents

Part I. The Hornswoggle Problem

Part II. The Conscience

Episode 83, The David Chalmers Interview (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 83 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be continuing our discussion with David Chalmers on the hard problem of consciousness.

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. How do 100 billion neurons come together to bring about a unified, conscious mind, and the rich tapestry of qualities that make up our world? This might be the most difficult problem in philosophy and science. No matter how rich our description of the brain, it seems that we’ll still be left with this same question: where does consciousness come from and what is its place in nature?

Having coined the term ‘the hard problem’ in 1994, today, David Chalmers finds himself ranked amongst the world’s most prominent thinkers. David is currently Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at New York University, co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, Honorary Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University, and co-director of the academic database PhilPapers. Amongst his many contributions, David is the author of The Conscious Mind, The Character of Consciousness, and Constructing the World. David’s hundreds of papers, interviews, and talks, make up some of the most influential contributions to the field, breathing new life into the debate and inspiring a new wave of scholarship.

For many, the problem of consciousness goes beyond the dusty chalkboards of seminar rooms and into our day-to-day lives. Consciousness may well be the determining factor of what constitutes a worthwhile existence, or whether or not a being deserves our moral consideration. 

The stakes are higher than the nature of the world itself. It’s time to wake up and smell the roses… how can we explain consciousness?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/frantically runs around with a hairdryer

Contents

Part I. Consciousness

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 83, The David Chalmers Interview (Part I - Consciousness)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 83 (Part I of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the hard problem of consciousness with David Chalmers.

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. How do 100 billion neurons come together to bring about a unified, conscious mind, and the rich tapestry of qualities that make up our world? This might be the most difficult problem in philosophy and science. No matter how rich our description of the brain, it seems that we’ll still be left with this same question: where does consciousness come from and what is its place in nature?

Having coined the term ‘the hard problem’ in 1994, today, David Chalmers finds himself ranked amongst the world’s most prominent thinkers. David is currently Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at New York University, co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, Honorary Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University, and co-director of the academic database PhilPapers. Amongst his many contributions, David is the author of The Conscious Mind, The Character of Consciousness, and Constructing the World. David’s hundreds of papers, interviews, and talks, make up some of the most influential contributions to the field, breathing new life into the debate and inspiring a new wave of scholarship.

For many, the problem of consciousness goes beyond the dusty chalkboards of seminar rooms and into our day-to-day lives. Consciousness may well be the determining factor of what constitutes a worthwhile existence, or whether or not a being deserves our moral consideration. 

The stakes are higher than the nature of the world itself. It’s time to wake up and smell the roses… how can we explain consciousness?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/frantically runs around with a hairdryer

Contents

Part I. Consciousness

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 82, ‘The Nature of Consciousness’ with Susan Blackmore (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 82 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be continuing our discussion with Susan Blackmore on the nature of consciousness.

The smell of coffee, the taste of asparagus, the warmth of a hug, and the agony of death: conscious experience makes up the fabric of our world, yet many consider it to be the most intractable mystery in philosophy and science. What is it like to undergo experience? What is the function of consciousness? Where does consciousness occur? What are the contents of this experience? Is our stream of consciousness unified?

The hardest problem of all, might be the origin of consciousness itself: how, why, or are we, subjects of experience? In one sense, it shouldn’t come as a surprise - after all, in the words of physicist Michio Kaku, ‘Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe; 100 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others’. However, for many, the brain doesn’t seem like the right type of thing to give rise to consciousness. How can soggy grey matter feel like anything? As McGinn put it, you might as well believe that numbers emerge from biscuits or ethics from rhubarb!

Challenging our understanding of consciousness and reframing the mystery is psychologist and author, Visiting Professor at Plymouth University, Dr Susan Blackmore. Best known for her books The Meme Machine, Zen and the Art of Consciousness, Consciousness: An Introduction, and Seeing Myself, Susan’s work spans across hundreds of publications in over 20 different languages, making huge contributions in the fields of psychology, memetics, religion, philosophy of mind, supernatural experience, and many other areas. It is no surprise to find her ranked amongst 2013’s 30 Most Influential Psychologists Working Today and 2015’s Top 100 Global Minds.

It’s time to smell the coffee, and reflect on your experience, to see the dark with the light on: what is the nature of consciousness?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/asks itself whether or not it's conscious

Contents

Part I. Mystery and Illusion

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 82, ‘The Nature of Consciousness’ with Susan Blackmore (Part I - Mystery and Illusion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 82 (Part I of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the nature of consciousness with Susan Blackmore.

The smell of coffee, the taste of asparagus, the warmth of a hug, and the agony of death: conscious experience makes up the fabric of our world, yet many consider it to be the most intractable mystery in philosophy and science. What is it like to undergo experience? What is the function of consciousness? Where does consciousness occur? What are the contents of this experience? Is our stream of consciousness unified?

The hardest problem of all, might be the origin of consciousness itself: how, why, or are we, subjects of experience? In one sense, it shouldn’t come as a surprise - after all, in the words of physicist Michio Kaku, ‘Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe; 100 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others’. However, for many, the brain doesn’t seem like the right type of thing to give rise to consciousness. How can soggy grey matter feel like anything? As McGinn put it, you might as well believe that numbers emerge from biscuits or ethics from rhubarb!

Challenging our understanding of consciousness and reframing the mystery is psychologist and author, Visiting Professor at Plymouth University, Dr Susan Blackmore. Best known for her books The Meme Machine, Zen and the Art of Consciousness, Consciousness: An Introduction, and Seeing Myself, Susan’s work spans across hundreds of publications in over 20 different languages, making huge contributions in the fields of psychology, memetics, religion, philosophy of mind, supernatural experience, and many other areas. It is no surprise to find her ranked amongst 2013’s 30 Most Influential Psychologists Working Today and 2015’s Top 100 Global Minds.

It’s time to smell the coffee, and reflect on your experience, to see the dark with the light on: what is the nature of consciousness?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/asks itself whether or not it's conscious

Contents

Part I. Mystery and Illusion

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 81, ‘The End of Everything: Astrophysically Speaking’ with Katie Mack (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 81 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the philosophy of the universe’s end with theoretical astrophysicist Katie Mack.

Approximately 13.8 billion years ago, an infinitely dense state of an infinitely large universe lay dormant upon the backdrop of existence. Then, the expansion of everything. The potential for trillions of galaxies sprung out from this same point, and today, they shine like fairy lights in the darkness of the vast cosmos. From our own little planet, bursting with life, art, culture, and science, we can observe the effects of the big bang and the universes’ continuing expansion. We can see the beginning, but we can also see the end. In about five billion years, the sun will swell to around 250 times its current size, leaving our once blue and white planet a lifeless, magma-covered rock. That’s settled, the apocalypse is coming: the land will fry and the seas will boil - but there is more at stake than the Earth. What matters now is the bigger question: how will the universe end?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the impending doom of the cosmos with theoretical astrophysicist Katherine Mack. Katie is Assistant Professor of Physics at North Carolina State University. As well as making huge contributions to the field of astrophysics, Katie is one of the most active public-facing scientists in the world today. From publications in Slate, Scientific America, and Time Magazine, to featuring on the BBC and being quoted in the song lyrics of Hozier, Katie’s work is expanding into the furthest corners of our planet. Grab the cosmic popcorn, it’s a question as old as time itself: how will the universe end?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/expands

Contents

Part I. The Death of the Universe

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 81, ‘The End of Everything: Astrophysically Speaking’ with Katie Mack (Part I - The Death of the Universe)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 81 (Part I of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the death of the universe with Katie Mack.

Approximately 13.8 billion years ago, an infinitely dense state of an infinitely large universe lay dormant upon the backdrop of existence. Then, the expansion of everything. The potential for trillions of galaxies sprung out from this same point, and today, they shine like fairy lights in the darkness of the vast cosmos. From our own little planet, bursting with life, art, culture, and science, we can observe the effects of the big bang and the universes’ continuing expansion. We can see the beginning, but we can also see the end. In about five billion years, the sun will swell to around 250 times its current size, leaving our once blue and white planet a lifeless, magma-covered rock. That’s settled, the apocalypse is coming: the land will fry and the seas will boil - but there is more at stake than the Earth. What matters now is the bigger question: how will the universe end?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the impending doom of the cosmos with theoretical astrophysicist Katherine Mack. Katie is Assistant Professor of Physics at North Carolina State University. As well as making huge contributions to the field of astrophysics, Katie is one of the most active public-facing scientists in the world today. From publications in Slate, Scientific America, and Time Magazine, to featuring on the BBC and being quoted in the song lyrics of Hozier, Katie’s work is expanding into the furthest corners of our planet. Grab the cosmic popcorn, it’s a question as old as time itself: how will the universe end?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/expands

Contents

Part I. The Death of the Universe

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 80, ‘Human Nature’ with Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 80 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be continuing our discussion on human nature with Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman.

What was life like before we emerged from hunter-gatherer tribes and pulled ourselves into the civilised world? Notoriously, this same question was asked by the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. His answer? The state of nature is a ‘time of war, where every man is enemy to every man’; where all live in ‘continual fear’, and in ‘danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ This is human nature. Left to our own devices, we are led to fight by diffidence, competition, and glory. Here our inner demons come out to play: predatory, revengeful, dominant, and sadistic. We are survival machines, but ultimately, the best way for us all to survive is to create a new machine, a great Leviathan - viz, the dawn of the state.

Thirty years after Hobbes’ death saw the birth of his rival, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is here, at the origin of the state, says Rousseau, where human nature is corrupted: society is the curse of humankind. In his own words, ‘many writers have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires civil institutions to make him more mild; whereas nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state… according to the axiom of the wise Locke: There can be no injury, where there is no property.’ Be sure not to listen to Hobbes the imposter. We are lost, but we can find ourselves again.

EWVPmQ-XQAEYJ9V.jpeg

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the views of Hobbes and Rousseau with returning guests Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman. Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, is one of the leading thinkers in the field. Steven has an extraordinary list of accomplishments and awards, considered by many, including Foreign Policy and Time magazine, to be amongst the 100 Most Influential People in the World Today. Historian and author, Rutger Bregman, is acclaimed for his bestselling book, Utopia for Realists: and how we can get there. Described by The Guardian as ‘the Dutch wunderkind of new ideas’ and by TED as ‘one of Europe's most prominent young thinkers’, Bregman’s vision of (and for) humankind is a call to rethink our understanding of the past, and our vision for the future.

Coinciding with the rise of the homo sapien, this might be the oldest and most important philosophical question: what is human nature?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/leaves the state of nature

Contents

Part I. Humankind

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 80, ‘Human Nature’ with Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman (Part I - Humankind)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 80 (Part I of II)’ where we’ll be discussing human nature with Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman.

What was life like before we emerged from hunter-gatherer tribes and pulled ourselves into the civilised world? Notoriously, this same question was asked by the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. His answer? The state of nature is a ‘time of war, where every man is enemy to every man’; where all live in ‘continual fear’, and in ‘danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ This is human nature. Left to our own devices, we are led to fight by diffidence, competition, and glory. Here our inner demons come out to play: predatory, revengeful, dominant, and sadistic. We are survival machines, but ultimately, the best way for us all to survive is to create a new machine, a great Leviathan - viz, the dawn of the state.

Thirty years after Hobbes’ death saw the birth of his rival, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is here, at the origin of the state, says Rousseau, where human nature is corrupted: society is the curse of humankind. In his own words, ‘many writers have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires civil institutions to make him more mild; whereas nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state… according to the axiom of the wise Locke: There can be no injury, where there is no property.’ Be sure not to listen to Hobbes the imposter. We are lost, but we can find ourselves again.

EWVPmQ-XQAEYJ9V.jpeg

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the views of Hobbes and Rousseau with returning guests Steven Pinker and Rutger Bregman. Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, is one of the leading thinkers in the field. Steven has an extraordinary list of accomplishments and awards, considered by many, including Foreign Policy and Time magazine, to be amongst the 100 Most Influential People in the World Today. Historian and author, Rutger Bregman, is acclaimed for his bestselling book, Utopia for Realists: and how we can get there. Described by The Guardian as ‘the Dutch wunderkind of new ideas’ and by TED as ‘one of Europe's most prominent young thinkers’, Bregman’s vision of (and for) humankind is a call to rethink our understanding of the past, and our vision for the future.

Coinciding with the rise of the homo sapien, this might be the oldest and most important philosophical question: what is human nature?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/leaves the state of nature

Contents

Part I. Humankind

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 79, The Absurd (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part III of III)', where we’ll be applying Nagel’s and Camus’ understanding of the absurd to philosophical literature, as well as engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/takes itself too seriously

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 79, The Absurd (Part II - Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part II of III)', where we’ll be comparing Thomas Nagel’s and Albert Camus’ understanding of the absurd.

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/takes itself too seriously

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 79, The Absurd (Part I - Thomas Nagel)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part I of III)', where we’ll be discussing Thomas Nagel’s paper, The Absurd (1971).

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/takes itself too seriously

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part III of III)', where we’ll be discussing the psychology of moral luck and engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part II - Thomas Nagel)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part II of III)', where we’ll be discussing Thomas Nagel’s Moral Luck.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part I - Bernard Williams)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part I of III)', where we’ll be discussing Bernard Williams’ Moral Luck.

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 77, ‘Time Travel: The Grandfather Paradox and Abilities’ with Olivia Coombes (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 77 (Part II of II)', where we’ll be discussing time travel with Olivia Coombes.

Olivia Coombes is a philosopher and teacher at the University of Edinburgh whose research focuses on issues about the possibility of time travel, the paradoxes involved in time travel, and how these topics relate to the question of free-will. In addition to this, Liv is also the co-host of the Edinburgh-based podcast Two Philosophers: One Podcast, No Problems.

Since the philosopher David Lewis, and before, philosophers, scientists, movie fans (pretty much everybody), have deliberated the possibility of time travel. People have asked questions like: What is the order of time? If we could build a powerful enough machine, would we be able to travel through time? Causation goes forwards in time, but is there anything stopping it going backwards? And, if it could, can we have causal loops in time?

In this episode we’re going to be focusing on the grandfather paradox, which is one instance of the question: can time travellers change the past? This paradox asks us whether or not we could go back in time and kill our own grandfathers. Many people say no: it is logically impossible, like squaring circles, or making something from nothing. However, Olivia Coombes thinks differently. She thinks that we can kill our grandfathers, and that we are able to change the past.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/travels forwards in time

Contents

Part I. Time Traveller Abilities

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 77, ‘Time Travel: The Grandfather Paradox and Abilities’ with Olivia Coombes (Part I - Time Traveller Abilities)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 77 (Part I of II)', where we’ll be discussing the grandfather paradox with Olivia Coombes.

Olivia Coombes is a philosopher and teacher at the University of Edinburgh whose research focuses on issues about the possibility of time travel, the paradoxes involved in time travel, and how these topics relate to the question of free-will. In addition to this, Liv is also the co-host of the Edinburgh-based podcast Two Philosophers: One Podcast, No Problems.

Since the philosopher David Lewis, and before, philosophers, scientists, movie fans (pretty much everybody), have deliberated the possibility of time travel. People have asked questions like: What is the order of time? If we could build a powerful enough machine, would we be able to travel through time? Causation goes forwards in time, but is there anything stopping it going backwards? And, if it could, can we have causal loops in time?

In this episode we’re going to be focusing on the grandfather paradox, which is one instance of the question: can time travellers change the past? This paradox asks us whether or not we could go back in time and kill our own grandfathers. Many people say no: it is logically impossible, like squaring circles, or making something from nothing. However, Olivia Coombes thinks differently. She thinks that we can kill our grandfathers, and that we are able to change the past.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/travels forwards in time

Contents

Part I. Time Traveller Abilities

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part V - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part V of V)', where we’ll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

All my life, I have been fed apples from that tree. I was told it was the only tree worth eating from. Every day, whether it was in school or in the church, someone would arrive with a basket, and I would take what they offered. Today a similar basket lays in front of me, full of apples I've been saving so to take a closer inspection.

Check those apples for me would you? Why so worried? Surely if they are good, there is nothing to worry about. You've heard of the Italian who was punished for checking, you say? I understand. I will do it myself.

There are too many in there to check one by one. I shall take them all out and only place back in the basket the ones that are certifiably good! I think the Italian might have been onto something, they all look rotten! I must check closer. I refuse to accept that they are all bad!

Ah, there is one. That will do. Perhaps the seeds can be used to grow more good apples...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part IV - Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part IV of V)', where we’ll be unpacking Descartes’ fifth and sixth meditations.

All my life, I have been fed apples from that tree. I was told it was the only tree worth eating from. Every day, whether it was in school or in the church, someone would arrive with a basket, and I would take what they offered. Today a similar basket lays in front of me, full of apples I've been saving so to take a closer inspection.

Check those apples for me would you? Why so worried? Surely if they are good, there is nothing to worry about. You've heard of the Italian who was punished for checking, you say? I understand. I will do it myself.

There are too many in there to check one by one. I shall take them all out and only place back in the basket the ones that are certifiably good! I think the Italian might have been onto something, they all look rotten! I must check closer. I refuse to accept that they are all bad!

Ah, there is one. That will do. Perhaps the seeds can be used to grow more good apples...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.