I've done other reading on it after Why, but other than this Galen video, I haven't had any better idea of how to understand the position.

No, I meant the stuff before getting to purpose. Why was kinda my introduction to panpsychism, and since I couldn't understand what it was, it's hard to follow how much of what you built on top of it makes sense.

I'll have to go read that. Because my initial thoughts trying to synthesize what he said in that video with what you said in Why makes me think Panpsychism is kinda silly. I assume that means I'm still missing *something* but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

Kinda like how quatum theory doesn't tell us relativity is wrong, just that it failed to capture everything.

Mostly when I hear you talk about it, the only way I could describe the position is as the rejection of both Physicalism and Dualism.

With Starwson, it seems like he's not saying that Physicalism is Wrong, but rather that it's correct but incomplete.

Every song is in 4/4 if you don't count like a nerd. ;)

I'm a Materialist, but Consciousness is Foundational - Galen Strawson YouTube video by Alex O'Connor

Watching thru this O'Conner vid after watching yours, and I'm finding that I can make much more sense of what Starwson's view of fundamental stuff is than I have been able to of your view.

Are his views regarding panpsychism significantly different than yours or are they mostly similar?

Unwinnable games, unintelligibility, and appeals to incredulity 1.0 The unintelligibility thesis

New one from @lanceindependent.bsky.social is up and well worth the read.

While his focus is on normativity, I think all this translates really well to the sort of "objective value" talk common in apologetics.

I wish more philosophers would seriously engage with Lance's ideas.

It's amazing the kinda problems one can cook up if you start from really goofy premises.

Which is how I feel about PsychoPhysical Harmony and it's dualism premise.

Great article, P-zombies are very silly.

Why Review? Punctuation is hard. Why? The Purpose Of The Universe, is a book by Dr. Philip Goff, and I Am going to write a review/companion of/to it.

But what I'd still really like is for Goff (or other defenders of the Limited God) to more fully address my objections that his analysis of alternative design hypothesis is problematically incomplete/incorrect.

substack.com/home/post/p-...

What comes out at the end seems to be that all the design hypothesis does compared to the necessity one is bloat our ontology by adding a radically different category of thing that is beset by all the same problems the defender claims the critic has.

3 is also a bit of a problem. In the FTDs own framing, adding to the hypothesis is going to decrease the prior probability. Plus if they get to expand their hypothesis to account for why the fundamental thing is the way it is, so too does the critic.

1 and 2 are huge problems. Because if 1 is an option for the defender it is also an option for the critic and the debate seems over. If the defender goes towards 2, they might as well have just started there because those arguments give the same conclusion and we didn't need to talk about FT at all.

The problem I see here is that when pressed on this point, FTDs seem to have 3 live options open to them.

1) Deny the need to provide this account.
2) Appeal to something like an ontological argument
3) Add a bunch of stuff to the Design hypothesis

If the FTD wants to successfully demand some account for why the foundational thing (universe) is the way it is in spite of epistemic possibility to the contrary, then they must be willing to offer some account of why their foundational thing (designer) is the way that it is.

The Fine Tuning defender(FTD) wants to break that symmetry and attempts to do so by appealing to the Epistemic possibility of the constants taking on different values.

The FTC could push back against this, after all Epistemic possibility =/= Metaphysical possibility, but they really don't need to.

But this designer needs no real account of why It is the way it is.

The FTC claiming necessity is making the claim that the universe is the foundational thing and is in no need of a real account of why It is the way it is.

See the symmetry here?

I think far too many Fine Tuning critics(FTC) are too hasty in abandoning the Necessity horn of the trilemma.

Doing a bit of theory comparison, what the design hypothesis is saying is that there is something more foundational than the universe that accounts for why the universe is the way it is...

Introducing h-Logic A New Way Forward via One Weird Trick

New favorite way to defang Fine Tuning and PsychoPhysical Harmony arguments just dropped.

@stanpatton.bsky.social is awesome.

Yeah and that's mostly all pretty fair. I think the theists are over playing the parity between ATE and fine tuning as evidential weight.

But considerations about that parity don't crack my top 3 issues with fine tuning anyway.

Funnily enough, that debate was 50% of the reason I wrote this thread.

The other being the Dinahue/McKay VS Bray/Malpass that I watched the same week as your discussion with Oppy.

bsky.app/profile/guss...

If you ever catch me not laughing at this meme, it's either not me or I'm in extreme distress.

Agender Agender is a gender identity generally defined as in which one lacks a gender or has very little experience of a gender. It can be seen either as a non-binary gender identity or as a statement of not ...

Yall ever learn a new term and then have to spend 3 days falling down the rabbit hole of what it means and the related terms, whilst simultaneously questioning your whole identity?

Well, I did.

Keep ATE as potential good evidence, and now fine tuning doesn't tip the scales because of the weight of the lack of ATE.

Ditch ATE, and by your own principal fine tuning does need to be considered good evidence.

I want to propose a dillema then for proponents of this ATE thing.

I will accept hypothetical ATE as good evidence for theism (if we had it) , to the same extent that they will accept the actual persistant and global lack of ATE as good evidence against theism.

If the presence of ATE would be good evidence for theism, then the absence of ATE must be at least Some evidence against theism.

The presence of fresh produce in my fridge is evidence of recent grocery shopping, the absence of fresh produce is evidence against recent grocery shopping.

I get the, for lack of a more precise term, intuition that ATE would be good evidence for theism if we had it.

However, I have another intuition about ATE that I think most theists are going to want to push back against.

The idea being that rejecting fine tuning as evidence for theism would require (for consistency) that we reject ATE as well, and since that would be silly, we shouldn't reject fine tuning as evidence for theism.

Here's my problem with the idea.

I keep seeing appeals to this idea of Awesome Theistic Evidence (generally the idea of we found something like the text of John 3:16 written in the stars), and that since something in that family would be good evidence for theism, so too is the evidence for fine tuning.

I mean, yes. But in my defense I've never seen that term used, and didn't really understand the depths of mental hell it might be there to protect me from.