This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, May 10, 2016.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,553
    This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|
    by Alex Tsakiris | May 10 | Consciousness Science

    Dr. Sean Carroll makes science’s meaningless universe meme sound palatable in his new book, The Big Picture.
    [​IMG]

    photo by: Awesome Inc
    Dr. Sean Carroll is a Harvard trained, Cal Tech theoretical physicist with a long list of fellowships, awards and bestselling books, including his latest, The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself.

    Dr. Carroll is not only a respected scientist, but with his many television and movie appearances, a bit of a science celebrity. All of which makes his opinion on consciousness and the meaning of life noteworthy. I recently completed a recorded interview with Dr. Carroll. You can listen to the complete, unedited interview through the link below, or read these excerpts along with my analysis. Let me start with this clip:

    Alex Tsakiris: Do you really believe that all human experience can be reduced to chemical reactions in our brain?

    Dr. Sean Carroll: Yeah except I wouldn’t use the word ‘just’. And I wouldn’t even use the word ‘reduced’. I certainly wouldn’t use the word ‘illusion’.

    Before directly addressing Dr. Carroll answer to this question, I’d point out that throughout this interview I used my pet phrase, “biological robots in a meaningless universe” when characterizing Dr. Carroll’s Naturalism philosophy. I wanted to see if he’d push back, but he never did. The reason is because no matter how he spins it, that is what he’s saying. He may say “meaning isn’t built into the fabric of the universe,” or “meaning and purpose are a social construct,” but it still boils down to the idea that we’re all just biological robots in a meaningless universe. He knows this, so he never challenged my phrasing.

    Back to this question, when I asked if everything can be reduced to a chemical reaction in your brain, Dr. Carroll’s answer was, “yes… but I wouldn’t say just.” This is the latest script change on the consciousness question from the meaningless universe crowd. 10 years ago they would just say what philosopher and noted atheist Dr. Daniel Dennett still says, “consciousness is an illusion.” In other words, there is no such thing as human experience so get over it. But somewhere along the way they realized this message/meme doesn’t sell. You can’t tell any rational person outside of academia that everything about their minute-to-minute experience as an illusion. They’d laugh in your face. It’s a crazy idea and it just does not sell outside of their very narrow group. So guys like Dr. Carrolll have changed the script. They now say your experience is this wonderful way we have of “talking about” this “emergent property” called consciousness that happens inside the brain. The trick is to give you something that sounds like what you know (i.e. that you really exist and are experiencing consciousness… duh) while sidestepping the really big questions of purpose and meaning. And also sidestepping the huge metaphysical assumption he’s making when declaring that consciousness is entirely a product of your brain. Keep in mind, Sean is a physicist, he’s not supposed to make metaphysical assumptions. But also keep in mind that this is what he’s doing. Sean can’t say when consciousness begins. He can’t say when it ends. He can’t say what’s necessary and sufficient to cause consciousness. But he wants you to accept his metaphysics and jump through these tortured apologetics about the “fabric of the universe” because he’s really, really committed to his cosmology, and he wants you to be committed too. Unfortunately for Sean, logic gets in the way of his argument. If the universe is meaningless, and you are embedded in that meaningless universe, then there can be no meaning to your life. It can’t be any other way. If there’s real meaning in/to your life, then there’s at least that much meaning in the universe. If the universe is meaningless, if there isn’t even a tiny little smidgen of it anywhere in the universe, then you have zero chance of ever finding it in your life. But again, this is not something Dr. Carroll can sell. He knows that even with his Harvard PhD you’re going to laugh at him if he tries to tell you your life is meaningless, so he’s putting up this elaborate “yes, but…” smoke screen.
     
    Reece, Ian Gordon, K9! and 4 others like this.
  2. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Credit to Alex for tackling Sean Carroll who is obviously a very accomplished physicist, top notch academic etc. However, I found his judgement naïve, surely he can do better than what amounts to "sensible people don't believe in life after death." Really ? That's the kind of argument you might advance when you're fifteen.. and then this

    "Life is short.......I could spend my entire life reading studies on near death experiences and carefully understanding why they're flawed ! "

    So "a priori" and without actually looking at the data, he concludes that it's all rubbish so he doesn't need to look anyway. That's exactly the standard head in the sand attitude of the majority of our intellectual masters, "superior" thinkers. "That" can't occur so it doesn't.... end of debate.

    Oh and I nearly forgot, Eben Alexander made millions so obviously his NDE was made up.
     
  3. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,361
    Home Page:
    Just a point on the "is just". As Tim Freke said in one interview here "is just" is a demystifyer. It is a linguistic tool that makes us feel above a concept which is a simplified model of a phenomenon embedded in an irreducibly complex reality. I support anyone who pushes back against the usage of "is just" because using it in a fundamentally mysterious and unexplainable universe especially regarding consciousness... is just hubris. :)

    When he says he's a naturalist, what he means is that he's a monist who lacks the imagination to conceive of other "natural" realms outside the permeable boundaries of this one. We're all monists when discussing the fundamental nature of reality, but as we move down the scale into layers of complexity it becomes reasonable to classify or impose boundaries upon "realms" that appear to have very different characteristics from one another. If I say there is land and sea I am not giving up monism. Similarly if I say there is the natural and the supernatural realm I'm not giving up monism or saying the supernatural realm is beyond exploration with the tools of science. Anything patterned can be explored with science and even the supernatural appears to have patterns and laws or habits.

    So when a naturalist denies the supernatural by asserting monism, we can agree with him on monism and even naturalism to a degree, but remind him that just as on earth we find various biomes and realms with differing dominant forces and rules so the same could be true for larger organizational structures within reality.
     
    soulatman, Ian Gordon, Judith and 4 others like this.
  4. north

    north Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    The cult of naturalism is the latest packaging of the materialistic philosophers. They are also orthodox evangelical members of the church of scientism.

    Despite their transitions from materialism to physicalism to naturalism, their beliefs are still incoherent and unscientific.

    The sameness of their dogma does not generate interesting interviews despite how many Alex conducts. Kudos to him for his patience.
     
    Roberta, Judith, tim and 3 others like this.
  5. This is the guy who wants us to believe in the Multiverse idea, that there are unseen, likely inaccessible universes created every moment?

    That's more scientific than "consciousness causes collapse"?

    Well remember that Carroll wants us to abandon falsification because it interferes with his faith that there's a Multiverse.

    As has been noted a few times the multiverse is a gambit by naturalists to corrupt science in order to use it in a battle against immaterialism in general and here fine-tuning by an entity or entities specifically. (Personally I think the leap to a classical conception of God just from fine tuning is unwarranted, but it's better than the multiverse as an explanation IMO.)

    Another time Carroll tried to excuse the lack of evidence for his particular Multiverse faith:

     
    Reece, iPsoFacTo, Dr. Savant and 8 others like this.
  6. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,553
    I know what you mean, but there a temptation among those of us who've moved passed this silliness to discount the extent to which this silliness still rules academia. This interview is a reminder.
     
  7. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,553
    I asked Dr. Dean Radin to comment. Here's his email:

     
    EthanT, Psiclops, iPsoFacTo and 14 others like this.
  8. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    Are these "scientist" really as smart as the general population believes? Seems like many of them are very narrow minded and arrogant. Maybe they are just "school" smart, which is a system instead of imagination smart?
     
    Reece, soulatman, Judith and 2 others like this.
  9. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,361
    Home Page:
    Perhaps we could co-opt his multiverse beliefs? I mean what's the difference in believing that "there's a natural realm and a supernatural realm and never the twain shall meet...except in rare circumstances" and the Multiverse belief where there are essentially infinite realms we can never meet (except possibly through rare unknown methods)?
     
  10. north

    north Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    If it was just academia most of us would be able to avoid it. Unfortunately the "free" press gives them lots of free press.

    Again I appreciate your patience in continuing to confront the ignorance of these people. Selfishly I get greater enjoyment from your interviews with people with more interesting and informed worldviews.
     
    Roberta, Alex and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  11. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,361
    Home Page:
    There are many kinds of intelligence, but I think it equally or more depends on other factors: curiosity, aversion to risk, status, orientation to authority, stability in one's life, culture, and personal history and upbringing... And perhaps it also depends on the knowledge gained by one's ancestors or in past lives?
     
    tim, Alex and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  12. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,571
    The "argument from authority" rules in academia these days. Academia has become the last place where you are going to find people questioning the status quo.

    I left academia after becoming disgusted by the lack of ethical behavior, the lack of intellectual freedom and the lack of imagination so inherent in the university environment. Students are taught to memorize, not to think. And tenured profs don't feel any obligation to provide evidence for their opinions.
     
    Reece, Lusikka, iPsoFacTo and 10 others like this.
  13. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Of course it isn't meaningless for a highly esteemed, well remunerated, nicely dressed guy with the means to promote his views to other equally high status players in the same game. It's positively bursting with meaning and will remain so until the lights go out. For anyone outside the reward circle, it's hopeless all the way down. Carroll's message is join in or succumb to the inevitable. It's an exclusive metaphysic, the ultimate high-priesthood of the elect.
     
  14. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Nice to see you back, Gabriel.
     
  15. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Nice to be out of the cage. Grrrr....
     
    Number 22, EthanT, malf and 5 others like this.
  16. Hurmanetar and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  17. politicaljunkie

    politicaljunkie New

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    291
    The problem is that the word "supernatural" creates a straw man. If psi etc. exists, and they can be observed with the scientific method (which seems they can) then they are natural phenomena, not supernatural.
     
    Psiclops, Lusikka, iPsoFacTo and 2 others like this.
  18. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Yup. I worked in academia as well....as a secretary, graphic artist, bookkeeper (some of the jobs I had). I observed first hand the intellectual one-upmanship and snobbery. I even worked in the Philosophy Dept. This was 25 years ago, so I'm sure things have gotten much .
     
    Reece, tim, Roberta and 4 others like this.
  19. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,571
    One summer I worked as a research assistant for a tenured professor who asked me to write a paper on the research we had been doing that summer. I wrote the paper, typed it up and gave it to him for final approval (he didn't suggest any major changes). He submitted the work for peer review, and boy was I shocked when it was published without my name as one of the authors. I was only mentioned in the acknowledgements as the person who typed the paper for the author (my boss). I was told that since he paid for my services as research assistant, he felt no requirement to share authorship with me. He essentially bought a paper and put his name on it. I found out later that he had a history of doing that sort of thing, but stealing work from grad students is extremely common and rarely punished. It's just part of the culture.

    This same prof was very quick to punish students caught cheating, including those who bought papers from online sources. He didn't think his actions were comparable to a student doing the same thing because as an academic he felt he was better than they were.
     
    Reece, iPsoFacTo, tim and 8 others like this.
  20. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    I'm glad Sean Carroll has it all figured out, now I can stop thinking;)
     
    iPsoFacTo, DTK, Judith and 9 others like this.

Share This Page