Philip Goff
@philipgoff.bsky.social
Philosophy Prof. Heretical Christian. Author of "Why? The Purpose of the Universe" & "Galileo's Error." "One of the most persuasive panpsychists" - Stephen Fry.
Reposted by Philip Goff
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
Consciousness is not just another scientific problem we haven’t dealt with yet.
philipgoff.substack.com
February 17, 2026 at 3:57 PM
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
Consciousness is not just another scientific problem we haven’t dealt with yet.
philipgoff.substack.com
February 17, 2026 at 3:57 PM
Will Science Ever Explain Consciousness?
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
philipgoff.substack.com/p/will-scien...
The problem is consciousness isn't like that. So either consciousness is something radically new when it pops up (David Chalmers-esque dualism) or there are intrinsic properties at the base of reality, even though science doesn't tell us what they are.
But a relational view insists there isn't anything else to what charge is than what it does. It doesn't have any properties that are not relational.
February 16, 2026 at 12:16 PM
The problem is consciousness isn't like that. So either consciousness is something radically new when it pops up (David Chalmers-esque dualism) or there are intrinsic properties at the base of reality, even though science doesn't tell us what they are.
Physical science is all about what stuff does. But when we're trying to explain why a system feels, we're not trying to explain its behaviour or the behaviour of its parts. The idea of a physical explanation of consciousness is a category mistake.
Unless one of the successes of science is explaining consciousness...why not give science a chance before dismissing it altogether?
Physical science is very good at explaining structure & dynamics: what stuff does. The *philosophical* dispute between physicalists & their opponents is whether explaining consciousness is a matter of explaining certain structure & dynamics. The success of science has no bearing on this dispute.
February 16, 2026 at 11:52 AM
Physical science is all about what stuff does. But when we're trying to explain why a system feels, we're not trying to explain its behaviour or the behaviour of its parts. The idea of a physical explanation of consciousness is a category mistake.
Physics tells us what charge does but not what it is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCxh...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCxh...
February 16, 2026 at 11:44 AM
Physics tells us what charge does but not what it is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCxh...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCxh...
The claim is not that consciousness is a fundamental property alongside spin and charge. The claim is that spin and charge are themselves forms of consciousness.
If I may… your version of panpsychism sounds a bit like physics. You’re not a million miles away from saying consciousness is just an additional fundamental property like spin or charge 😉
February 16, 2026 at 9:17 AM
The claim is not that consciousness is a fundamental property alongside spin and charge. The claim is that spin and charge are themselves forms of consciousness.
The point is physicalism is equally a metaphysical proposal that is independent of the science. It's totally fine to just do the science and leave the metaphysics to the philosophers. The problem is the pretence that physicalism is science whilst panpsychism is counter to science.
Your original statement is akin to deciding to contemplate the diversity of species at a metaphysical level, and consequently concluding that evolution is merely promissory.
I wouldn't deny you your metaphysical project, even though it would seem equally ill-motivated to me.
I wouldn't deny you your metaphysical project, even though it would seem equally ill-motivated to me.
February 16, 2026 at 9:03 AM
The point is physicalism is equally a metaphysical proposal that is independent of the science. It's totally fine to just do the science and leave the metaphysics to the philosophers. The problem is the pretence that physicalism is science whilst panpsychism is counter to science.
Is "x feels" reducible to "x does such and such/has parts that do such and such?"
This is the only question that matters in the philosophy of consciousness.
This is the only question that matters in the philosophy of consciousness.
Hmm... I guess I'd say that feeling may be one of the things it does.
February 15, 2026 at 7:38 PM
Is "x feels" reducible to "x does such and such/has parts that do such and such?"
This is the only question that matters in the philosophy of consciousness.
This is the only question that matters in the philosophy of consciousness.
When I ask "Why is this system conscious?" is that the same as asking "Why does this system behave in such and such a way/have parts that behave in such and such a way?"
Anyone who answers "yes" to this question means something different to me when they use the word "conscious."
Anyone who answers "yes" to this question means something different to me when they use the word "conscious."
FWIW, I think (2) is exactly wrong. I think the only way to explain consciousness is to explain the structure and dynamics of physical things.
*
[it’s pattern recognition]
*
[it’s pattern recognition]
February 15, 2026 at 6:36 PM
When I ask "Why is this system conscious?" is that the same as asking "Why does this system behave in such and such a way/have parts that behave in such and such a way?"
Anyone who answers "yes" to this question means something different to me when they use the word "conscious."
Anyone who answers "yes" to this question means something different to me when they use the word "conscious."
Reposted by Philip Goff
Physical science is very good at explaining structure & dynamics: what stuff does. The *philosophical* dispute between physicalists & their opponents is whether explaining consciousness is a matter of explaining certain structure & dynamics. The success of science has no bearing on this dispute.
Yes, and it is science that cashes in for physicalism, in the same way it cashes in for evolution, germ theory, and relativity.
February 15, 2026 at 2:06 PM
Physical science is very good at explaining structure & dynamics: what stuff does. The *philosophical* dispute between physicalists & their opponents is whether explaining consciousness is a matter of explaining certain structure & dynamics. The success of science has no bearing on this dispute.
Physical science is amazing, but physical science is not the same thing as physicalism.
"Physicalism never cashed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here Philip...
February 14, 2026 at 10:36 PM
Physical science is amazing, but physical science is not the same thing as physicalism.
Modern science kicked off with Galileo taking consciousness outside of the scientific domain of science. Physicalism is a promissory note that is never cashed. Panpsychism brings together what Galileo separated: matter is what consciousness does.
But there's an intuitive feeling that only one of these projects is at least in principle worth pursuing - as only one of them would seem to be in line with what we've been doing in science for the past 400 yrs or so.
February 13, 2026 at 12:17 AM
Modern science kicked off with Galileo taking consciousness outside of the scientific domain of science. Physicalism is a promissory note that is never cashed. Panpsychism brings together what Galileo separated: matter is what consciousness does.
Selfie pre this evening's talk on which things are conscious at Oxford
February 12, 2026 at 11:06 PM
Selfie pre this evening's talk on which things are conscious at Oxford
I'm speaking as part of this today...come along if you're in Oxford!
www.exeter.ox.ac.uk/conversation...
www.exeter.ox.ac.uk/conversation...
Conversations on Consciousness - Exeter College
What does it mean to say ‘I am’? Is the sense of subjectivity a delusion? Are only humans conscious? What about whales, AI, and electrons? How should we use our consciousness? How do we use our consci...
www.exeter.ox.ac.uk
February 12, 2026 at 1:22 PM
I'm speaking as part of this today...come along if you're in Oxford!
www.exeter.ox.ac.uk/conversation...
www.exeter.ox.ac.uk/conversation...
Physicalists aspire to give an account of how consciousness emerges from physical reality.
Panpsychists aspire to give an account of how physical reality emerges from consciousness.
One of these explanatory projects has been more successful than the other. Can you guess which one?
Panpsychists aspire to give an account of how physical reality emerges from consciousness.
One of these explanatory projects has been more successful than the other. Can you guess which one?
How does the "explain everything else" bit work?
February 11, 2026 at 7:47 PM
Physicalists aspire to give an account of how consciousness emerges from physical reality.
Panpsychists aspire to give an account of how physical reality emerges from consciousness.
One of these explanatory projects has been more successful than the other. Can you guess which one?
Panpsychists aspire to give an account of how physical reality emerges from consciousness.
One of these explanatory projects has been more successful than the other. Can you guess which one?
Me, Miri Albahari and David Godman recently debated the comparative merits of two different mystical traditions: Advaita Vedanta and Eastern Christianity.
www.thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/...
www.thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/...
Episode 152, ‘God, Consciousness, and Fundamental Reality’ with Philip Goff, David Godman, and Miri Albahari (Part I - The Debate)
Welcome to Episode 152 (Part I of II), where Goff, Godman, and Albahari debate the nature of God and fundamental reality. The supreme being of classical theism is unlimited in power, knowledge, and...
www.thepanpsycast.com
February 11, 2026 at 4:34 PM
Me, Miri Albahari and David Godman recently debated the comparative merits of two different mystical traditions: Advaita Vedanta and Eastern Christianity.
www.thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/...
www.thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/...
This is complete misunderstanding of what panpsychism is and what it's trying to explain. Panpsychists don't think rocks are conscious. They posit simple forms of consciousness at the fundamental level and explain everything else in terms of that.
A panphychic explanation would just seem to say that the rock and dog both experience consciousness. I don’t know how you demonstrate evidence that it’s true, or what else that we can understand about consciousness because it just upends our current understanding without answering any questions.
February 11, 2026 at 8:33 AM
This is complete misunderstanding of what panpsychism is and what it's trying to explain. Panpsychists don't think rocks are conscious. They posit simple forms of consciousness at the fundamental level and explain everything else in terms of that.
Reposted by Philip Goff
Do ghosts exist?? And what is my favourite kind of tea??
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Ghosts and Tea Drinking
Do ghosts exist??
philipgoff.substack.com
February 10, 2026 at 3:39 PM
Do ghosts exist?? And what is my favourite kind of tea??
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Why is explaining physical reality in terms of consciousness less satisfactory that explaining consciousness in terms of physical reality?
One says let's not add any assumptions about magical properties, the other one says let's do it for no good reason, and leaves it to that, leading nowhere.
So yeah, not in competition.
So yeah, not in competition.
February 10, 2026 at 4:54 PM
Why is explaining physical reality in terms of consciousness less satisfactory that explaining consciousness in terms of physical reality?
Do ghosts exist?? And what is my favourite kind of tea??
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Ghosts and Tea Drinking
Do ghosts exist??
philipgoff.substack.com
February 10, 2026 at 3:39 PM
Do ghosts exist?? And what is my favourite kind of tea??
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
Just two of the amazing subscriber questions on this month's 'Ask Me Anything video'...plus you get to see my anti-panpsychist cat!!!
philipgoff.substack.com/p/ghosts-and...
So many people equate physicalism with science, and see panpsychism as somehow in competition with science. In reality, both are philosophical interpretations of the reality underlying science.
February 10, 2026 at 11:55 AM
So many people equate physicalism with science, and see panpsychism as somehow in competition with science. In reality, both are philosophical interpretations of the reality underlying science.
Reposted by Philip Goff
