Any toddler can ask "why" ad nauseam (at least it seems that way to adults in the vicinity) - and that is a good thing - but answering is the clever part.
Strangely, some philosophers seem to shy away from answering. Philip Goff, for example, whose forays into popularizing include "Galileo's Error", merely declares that consciousness is fundamental, without explaining the second thing about what that means, and he is not, apparently, at all interested in following through; in fact, he seems to think that is a job for scientists - the same scientists who have made the error of adopting mathematical models, apparently - who should gratefully accept his insights and do something (what?) with them.
@matthewsawczyn6592:If this man ever talks to toddlers, the conversation will be infinite.
@thisismonitor4099: He actually did. He talked to me when I was a toddler at a physics conference in Greece and i remember it well. However, at the time I thought my father (another physicist) was smarter than him:)... Well he asked me if I knew my numbers (I did) and then talked a bit about them, and I told him my father taught me and that he was the smartest man in the world - lol he agreed:)
He was a very kind man to children indeed and he certainly had no airs about him given that this guy was a 1 on the Landau scale and that probably no one else at the conference was better than a 3 so he would have been 100 times more influential than anyone else ...
Regurgitating memorized ideological theories as if they are facts is not particularly clever in my books, but opinions vary.
> who should gratefully accept his insights and do something (what?) with them.
Well...they could practice their epistemic humility and control over their conscious processes, wonder whether their ideology and models are missing anything important (to the future well-being of the existence of humans on this planet), etc.
Strangely, some philosophers seem to shy away from answering. Philip Goff, for example, whose forays into popularizing include "Galileo's Error", merely declares that consciousness is fundamental, without explaining the second thing about what that means, and he is not, apparently, at all interested in following through; in fact, he seems to think that is a job for scientists - the same scientists who have made the error of adopting mathematical models, apparently - who should gratefully accept his insights and do something (what?) with them.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/599229/galileos-err...