Does the Universe Have a Purpose? w/ Philip Goff | The Psychology Podcast

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

Great discussion, thank you for sharing! Bohm claimed that the fundamental nature of consciousness is not located in the physical world we perceive, but rather in a deeper, interconnected, and underlying level of reality called the "implicate order," where everything is enfolded and interconnected, and our conscious experience is a manifestation of this underlying order unfolding into the "explicate order" we observe. This is in alignment with views on consciousness expressed by Schrodinger and Planck, all of which align with panpsychism.

[@philipgoff7897]

thanks! I'm a bit fan of Bohm, and in fact one of my colleagues William Simpson is doing important work bringing panpsychism together with Bohm and panpsychism. I've also been working with a couple of philosophers of physics on a different way of bringing quantum physics and panpsychism together.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

@philipgoff7897 Keep up the great work Dr. Goff, thank you for sharing 🙏. The great analytic philosopher Bertrand Russell also arrived at panpsychism as closer to truth than physicalism. For example, "Russellian monism" or "Russell's neutral monism", is a theory that posits that the conscious mind is a higher-order structure of identical intrinsic properties, or quiddities, which aligns with panpsychism. The metaphysicians of the late Persian Empire, such as Ibn Sina (father of modern medicine) and Rumi (philosopher of mind) also arrived at panpsychism. Also, the founder of philosophy (Zoroaster) was the first to describe and apply panpsychism as a method of achieving Gnosis. Panpsychism has a colorful history that is coming back to light as the plague of physicalism is losing ground ...

[@drmaynardbrusman]

So much brilliant food for thought. I'm comfortable not knowing if the universe has a purpose. I believe love is the most powerful force in the universe. BE LOVE Mystical Maynard’s Purpose Statement To love deeply, learn through creative curiosity, grow each moment, create possibility, awaken and mindfully serve others with loving awareness, gratitude and a warm heart. 🙏❤🙏❤

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

That is true. However, it is also true that love that is not harnessed by wisdom leads to disease...

[@vicsteblin5188]

About consciousness, the following is simple enough for me right now ... MEMORY = what the human brain is really good at = language = culture = religion = philosophy = politics = careers = consciousness ... so STUDY MEMORY.

[@rodsolorzano9147]

Let's see: 1. We title the podcast "The Purpose of the Universe", yet fail to talk about it. 2. We instead discuss several human beliefs (God/The non-existence of God) and give our opinion on these. 3. We mention at least a dozen concepts, such as Psychic Cosmology, something whose name escapes me, but essentially means 'Scientific Tweaking'. None of these concepts are discussed at length. Hell, they're not even defined! We're supposed to already know them satisfactorily. 4. We talk about the multiple possibilities of 'reality', including 'The Matrix' and 'The Great Electronic Game' theory, in which we humans are characters in a game being played by 'super beings'. We discuss at length Mystical States, Religion, and Spirituality, all the while confusing "religion" with "spirituality". "Religion" (religare: to tie together) is a human agreement on a set of behaviors -based on shared beliefs. Religion is 'of humans, by humans, for humans'; whereas "spirituality" deals with a relationship between humans and the 'spiritual world', whose most relevant inhabitant is GOD. These distinctions are lost on the podcast interlocutors. Oh, they mention many names to lend 'legitimacy' to their musings: Freud, Jung, James, and "a cast of thousands" of lesser luminaries, whose mere mention is supposed to, perhaps, take the place of original analyses and conclusions. A very unsatisfactory hour, indeed. I proposed a thought experiment in case the topic of "Universe" is ever revisited: What happens to all the energy/matter devoured by a Black Hole, i.e., where DOES IT GO? And is it not just 'exquisitely serendipitous' that normally serious scientists can posit the existence of an entity (say, "dark matter") to 'explain' the fatal deficiency at the heart of current "cosmological expansion theory". Oh yeah, not only the existence of (never observed) "dark matter", but EXACTLY THE RIGHT AMOUNT of this "bête noir" to save the current theory. As the Church Lady on SNL used to say: How conveeeenient!

[@robertyoder1981]

I'm simultaneously intrigued and put off by this episode. How is this passing as scientific inquiry at the highest level? Honest question.