The Mystery of Psycho-Physical Harmony

This month Philip will do a solo episode on the mystery of psycho-physical harmony. Philip will spend 20 minutes outlining the problem (and why he thinks it's going to change the world), and will then answer questions from live viewers.

“Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism"

Brian Cutter & Dustin Crummett

Dustin Crummett and I have a new paper, “Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism,” forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. It concerns a puzzle about consciousness that, according to Philip Goff, is “going to change the world.” In this post, I’ll explain what psychophysical harmony is, why it seems to call for explanation, and why it seems especially puzzling from the standpoint of naturalistic atheism. Dustin and I aren’t the first to discuss the puzzle of psychophysical harmony. Versions of it have been discussed by Adam Pautz, Philip Goff, David Chalmers, Hedda Hassel Mørch, Brad Saad, among others. Nor are we the first to suggest that it poses a prima facie threat to naturalistic atheism. Pautz writes, concerning one kind of psychophysical harmony, “What—short of an intelligent designer—might explain why the psychological laws are actually ‘fine-tuned’ to result in normative harmony?” Noa Latham writes, concerning another kind of psychophysical harmony that seems to be implied by David Chalmers’ views in The Conscious Mind, that it’s “in need of a benevolent God to make it credible” and that “actual theists might herald this as a new argument from design.” But unlike most other philosophers who have discussed the puzzle of psychophysical harmony, we draw the natural inference. We think of the psychophysical harmony argument as loosely analogous to the more familiar cosmological fine-tuning argument for theism, focused on the psychophysical laws (laws linking physical states to phenomenal states) rather than laws of physics and cosmology. But the psychophysical harmony argument has one major advantage: it’s not vulnerable to multiverse responses (or so we argue—see sect. 4 of paper).

What's the Best Explanation of Psychophysical Harmony? w/ Philip Goff & Dustin Crummett

Philip Goff and Dustin Crummett debate psychophysical harmony, God, axiarchism, pan-agentialism, natural teleology, and explore some neglected terrain between theism and the hypothesis of indifference. What are our options in explaining the fine-tuning of consciousness?

edit: alternate link ->

/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:40 Indifference vs Value Selection
03:47 Dustin's opening
09:48 Philip's opening
23:32 Open dialogue: Panagentialism, IIT, Teleology
1:02:22 Problem of Evil
1:12:53 Limited God
1:51:43 Philip's book title & subtitle

Having listened to Philip's explanation of the problem (the first 25 mins or so of the first video), I think this is a valid problem and it should be taken as a strong argument against materialism. It is a crystallisation of something many of us probably feel.

I'd just like to explore this issue in the context of sexual motivation.

Since Philip discussed pain, the obvious complication is that some people get a pleasurable sexual kick out of pain provided the pain is not too intense.

Indeed this seems to be a more general aspect of human sexuality. Taking someone else's saliva into your mouth would normally provoke a disgust response except if you are kissing someone of the opposite sex who you find attractive.

Like pain, our disgust response is also there to protect us from harm in a world full of communicable diseases.

To avoid this discussion getting too pornographic, I'll just add that this ambivalence seems to be present in most/all sexual activity. It is also easy to envisage situations in which someone's response might flip-flop flop rather like observing a Necker cube!

The other interesting aspect of sexual activity (in this context!), is that we usually do it for reasons utterly unconnected with its biological function - so in a sense we can sometimes experience being the hypothetical being that Philip introduces - someone whose response to an unpleasant stimulus is the opposite of what it 'should' be.

I'm not quite sure what this adds to Philip's discussion, but I'm sure it complicates it.

David

I'm not quite sure what this adds to Philip's discussion, but I'm sure it complicates it.

Masochism has come up, even in the Q&A section of the video you watched the early part of (tho only briefly AFAICTell as I didn't stick around for the entire Q&A portion either yet).

I think ultimately to even get to our level of consciousness and the varied sexual proclivities of different humans you still need the proper alignment of pain and pleasure responses.

edit: Imagine if the mammals that are our ancestors on the evolutionary tree derived maximum pleasure - sexual or otherwise - from starving to death.

In this video, I lay out the argument from Psychophysical Harmony, and respond to its major objections.

=-=-=

Why I'm An Atheist Despite Psychophysical Harmony

Bentham's Bulldog

I think that the argument from psychophysical harmony is the best argument for theism by leaps and bounds. But I think theism starts out as really implausible. Thus, if there’s an alternative way to explain the data, even if it’s really implausible, I’m still probably going to find it more probable than theism. Psychophysical harmony is basically the only thing that moves me in favor of atheism.

Here, I’ll provide some reasons that this argument doesn’t make me a theist. Later, I’ll provide an alternative explanation of psychophysical harmony. This is, I think, my favorite solution.

My favorite explanation

Suppose we accept the following few things.

1. There are huge numbers of universes.
   
2. Universes have their own psychophysical laws.
   
3. Beings in the universes can create new universes if they’re sufficiently motivated.
   

Whenever someone tries to use a Multiverse as a way to get out of fine turning I end [up] feeling the argument they are against is stronger...

Masochism has come up, even in the Q&A section of the video you watched the early part of (tho only briefly AFAICTell as I didn't stick around for the entire Q&A portion either yet).

I avoided using the word 'masochism', because that might imply that most people don't exhibit the phenomenon. As I explained I think just about everyone encounters something similar. There are other examples, but I think sex is the clearest.

I think ultimately to even get to our level of consciousness and the varied sexual proclivities of different humans you still need the proper alignment of pain and pleasure responses.

That sounds good, but does it actually mean anything 

The problem we share with Philip is that we all believe that consciousness is not generated physically - so we don't have a problem.

I agree very much that you can't argue that the harmony arises from evolution by natural selection. Even if that were true, you still have to explain what is going on in the end result of all that evolution.

BTW I came across a thread that you created that linked to someone who was arguing in favour of RM+NS. I was going to write a response, but I'd just got home from a long (by our standards) bike ride, and I left it until later. Now I can't find it!

David

I avoided using the word 'masochism', because that might imply that most people don't exhibit the phenomenon. As I explained I think just about everyone encounters something similar. There are other examples, but I think sex is the clearest.

That sounds good, but does it actually mean anything 

The problem we share with Philip is that we all believe that consciousness is not generated physically - so we don't have a problem.

I agree very much that you can't argue that the harmony arises from evolution by natural selection. Even if that were true, you still have to explain what is going on in the end result of all that evolution.

BTW I came across a thread that you created that linked to someone who was arguing in favour of RM+NS. I was going to write a response, but I'd just got home from a long (by our standards) bike ride, and I left it until later. Now I can't find it!

David

Ah I thought you were trying to say there wasn't a mystery.

I do agree that it is curious that sexual responses seem to make what is otherwise disgusting pleasurable. I think there's even an old comedy show episode about two people who have sex but are disgusted by the thought of using the other's toothbrush.

As for arguing in favor of RM + NS, not sure if this is an old thread or new one. I can probably find the post you're thinking of though as it was likely a Christian not impressed by ID. I usually don't post atheist arguments against ID because I assume they are (possibly fundamentalist) materialist evangelicals pushing their own faith under the guise of science.

=-=-=

Why I'm An Atheist Despite Psychophysical Harmony

Bentham's Bulldog

Whenever someone tries to use a Multiverse as a way to get out of fine turning I end [up] feeling the argument they are against is stronger...

Dustin Crummett and I summarize the argument from psychophysical harmony.

=-=-=

Dr. Dustin Crummett joins me to discuss a new argument from consciousness for theism. Though psychophysical harmony is evidence for theism, it may be equally good evidence for non-theistic hypotheses that I find interesting, like axiarchism and natural teleology.

=-=-=

Dr. Brian Cutter joins me to discuss his paper, 'Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism', coauthored with Dr. Dustin Crummett.

After talking about epiphenomenalism and why William James’ argument against it works against all views in philosophy of mind (with the lone exception of Type-A materialism), we explain why psychophysical harmony seems so improbable. We also discuss what I consider to be one of the weirder features of physicalism – the metaphysical impossibility of inverts, zombies, disharmony, and so on – and why one's views about metaphysical modality won't help you escape the argument from psychophysical harmony. In addition to touching on a few objections, we also talk about the underdetermination of the data, and why psychophysical harmony may be equally good evidence for some hypotheses of those who exist in The Nagel Zone.

The paper: https://philarchive.org/rec/CUTPHA

William James' argument against epiphenomenalism:    • William James’ Ev...