Philosophers & Gamblers

## Details

A live, text-driven seminar on major works in philosophy (mostly analytic). We read the paper together, slowly—stopping to clarify terms, reconstruct arguments, and stress-test claims. You can find the next week's reading here

WARNING

Browse the current and upcoming papers along with past Readings and meetings. Expect highly technical material, dense terminology, and high abstraction. It is full of philosophical jargon and complex technical terms. Your expectation should be to treat it as a graduate seminar in philosophy. We don't assume you have a degree in philosophy, but we do assume philosophical maturity and/or a crazy level of passion for deductive reasoning. If you are into that sort of thing, be my guest. We will start reviewing the paper, and start reading from page 12 of the PDF. You can take a look at my review of Strawson here.

DETAILS

Galen Strawson’s “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism” is one of the most forceful—and controversial—arguments in contemporary philosophy of mind. What makes the paper significant is not that it defends panpsychism per se; panpsychism has been around for centuries. The shock comes from who is making the argument and how he makes it: Strawson insists that panpsychism is the only coherent version of physicalism left standing once you take consciousness seriously.

The core claim can be stated crisply:

If physicalism is true and consciousness is real, then consciousness must be a fundamental feature of the physical world—not an inexplicable emergent add-on.

Therefore, physicalism → panpsychism.

Strawson accuses mainstream physicalists of intellectual double-dealing. They profess allegiance to physicalism, yet treat consciousness as an anomalous latecomer—an emergent property that magically arises from non-experiential matter. For Strawson, this “emergentist physicalism” is not just incomplete; it is metaphysically incoherent. If consciousness is genuinely real, and if everything real is physical, then the denial that matter has an experiential aspect is simply a disguised form of dualism.

What the paper does—and does ruthlessly—is collapse the standard physicalist taxonomy. Strawson argues that there are not many versions of physicalism; there is only one coherent version:
a monistic ontology in which the intrinsic nature of the physical includes experiential properties.

In this sense, the paper is not an argument for panpsychism from scratch. It is a reductio of the alternatives:

• Eliminativism is untenable because consciousness is the one thing we cannot coherently deny.
• Dualism violates physicalism by definition.
• Emergentism violates the causal closure and metaphysical unity physicalists claim to defend.
• Non-experiential monism is just dualism wearing a physicalist mask.

Strawson’s argumentative strategy is elegantly simple:
Start with premises every physicalist claims to believe, and follow them to their conclusion. The physicalists blink first.

Conclusions

Strawson takes physicalism more seriously than most physicalists do. He reads “everything is physical” literally. And once you do that, the ontological space tightens: the only way to avoid inexplicable metaphysical gaps is to attribute experiential properties to matter at the most fundamental level.

The paper is therefore best understood as a challenge:
Either bite the panpsychist bullet, or admit you were never a physicalist in the first place.

Whether one finds the argument compelling or infuriating, it is undeniably foundational. It forces a re-examination of what “physical” actually means—a question analytic philosophy has been able to postpone but not avoid. For that reason, Strawson’s paper remains essential reading.

This is not a debate or a forum for persuasion—it’s an exercise in empathy, curiosity, and deeper understanding. By listening without judgment, we strengthen our ability to connect across differences, identify shared values, and better understand the forces shaping our communities and our country.

Come prepared to listen actively, ask respectful questions, and practice the discipline of understanding before responding.

Our panel includes:
Stephen De Luca is an attorney with more than 30 years of experience, including clerking for a United States Judge for the Court of International Trade, serving in the Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, managing teams of up to 700+ attorneys working on complex litigation and regulatory matters for some of the world's largest law firms, and representing individual, business and corporate clients in a wide range of matters before administrative agencies, arbitrations, mediations, and state and federal courts at the trial and appellate levels. He currently serves as a Special Associate in the General Litigation Division of the NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, working on class action lawsuits brought against the City of New York and its agencies and officials. He has served as a volunteer attorney for the 2008 elections in Tampa, FL, the 2010 elections in Jersey City, NJ, and the 2020 elections in Erie and Pittsburgh, PA. He was the Republican nominee for County Executive for Hudson County in 2011 and an independent candidate for Congress for the 8th congressional district of New Jersey in 2012. He recently served on the Immigrant Affairs Commission for the City of Jersey City. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the NJ Coalition Against Human Trafficking. And he has worked with the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Paterson to ensure all clergy, employees, and volunteers are screened and trained in the prevention of child sex abuse. Stephen has a B.A. from the University of Rochester, a J.D. from Pace Law School, and an LL.M. and S.J.D. from Tulane Law School. Stephen is a former Naval Officer having served on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Midway (CV41), when it was permanently forward deployed out of Yokosuka, Japan. He lives in Lake Parsippany.

Blake McBride is a software engineer, author, and business owner with a keen interest in philosophy and politics. As a lifelong non-religious Republican and a deep thinker, Blake recognizes the limitations of his knowledge and remains open to the possibility of being wrong.

Throughout his forty years as an adult, he has encountered few individuals willing to engage in constructive discussions about politics. In recent times, the typical response has often been limited to ad hominem attacks, with little willingness to address the underlying issues. Blake eagerly anticipates the opportunity to share his perspectives and gain a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints.

Sean Miller:
Sean Miller is the host of the meetup group ‘The Bridge: Liberal and Conservative Common Grounds.’ Sean is a Classic Liberal who voted for Obama, Hillary, and then Trump twice.

Raised in a religious, conservative household, he was the black sheep liberal of the family who enjoyed debating culture at the dinner table. He believes dialogue across sides is only possible through emotional empathy, charity, and humor.

Although agnostic, he speaks fluent conservative and progressive, and has been increasingly alarmed by the Democratic abandonment of Liberal principles and embrace of Critical Theory.

A little about our host:
Garrett is a programmer turned award-winning software inventor turned entrepreneur (http://platerate.com/) is his company. His hobby is writing and discussing practical philosophy, and he does life coaching on request to help people live happy, moral lives. He is also the executive director of The Free Thinker Institute (http://freethinkerinstitute.org/), which aims to create a community that helps members increase happiness and decrease harm for themselves and those they can influence.

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.
To get familiar with our past events, feel free to check out our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmixGB9GdrptyEWovEj80zg

After registering via zoom, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

We publish our event recordings on our Youtube channel to offer our help to anyone who would like to but can’t attend the meeting, so we need to give this clause. If you don’t want to be recorded, just remain on mute and keep your video off.

Here’s our legal notice: For valuable consideration received, by joining this event I hereby grant Free Thinker Institute and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish any and all Zoom recordings for trade, advertising and any other commercial purpose, and to alter the same without any restriction. I hereby release Free Thinker Institute and its legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability related to said video recordings.

# You cannot RSVP here. Please go to the PHILOSOPHY OF VALUE link below for meeting description and instructions

# PHILOSOPHY OF VALUE WEEKLY EVENT - VARIOUS

# https://www.meetup.com/philosophy-of-value-workshops/

#