Show Notes
For most scientists, the mind is little more than a machine. With the rise of AI, some now claim that computers may themselves become conscious. For acclaimed neuroscientist, psychiatrist, and philosopher Iain McGilchrist, this is a profound mistake. The attempt to explain the mind in purely mechanistic terms reflects the flawed assumptions of materialism and reductionism – both symptoms of a civilisation dangerously dominated by left-hemisphere thinking. To understand mind and matter, he argues, we need to restore the right hemisphere to its rightful primacy and move beyond materialism. Iain McGilchrist is a distinguished British neuroscientist, psychiatrist and philosopher. A former Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, Iain McGilchrist also worked as a consulting psychiatrist, and is known for his influential work on the relationship between the structure of our brains, human cultures and our understanding of the world. Oliver Adelson is Philosophy Desk Lead at the Institute of Art and Ideas. He is also Head of Speaker Booking for the IAI's HowTheLightGetsIn Festival. Don't hesitate to email us at [email protected] with your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such talks live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/ And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/ You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.