E8: Part 1 — The Unconscious Mind (with Béatrice Longuenesse)

E8: Part 1 — The Unconscious Mind (with Béatrice Longuenesse)

The Unconscious Mind (Part 1) A conscious thought rarely lasts. The instant your attention moves on, where does it go? Béatrice Longuenesse would argue: into memory, and from there into the workings of a mind you cannot directly inspect. The unconscious is at work every day, organizing our perceptual information and giving our conscious mind the sense and reason it needs to navigate the world. But what about the memories buried beyond recall — how can something influence us if we don't even know it's there? Across this two-part series, Longuenesse turns to two of history's great thinkers of mind, Kant and Freud, to chart the territory between conscious and unconscious life. This first episode focuses on Kant, and how his critiques of reason offer a map of the mind — one that is constantly, silently structuring our experience of the world, shaping our worldview, our perceptions, our reactions, often before conscious thought ever catches up. And how much control do we really have? Join us for this first part of the Unconscious Mind as Tuomo Tiisala and Katarina Kraus sit down with Béatrice Longuenesse (NYU). We also touch on those memories that surface "randomly" — just a glitch, or are they answering to a trigger we haven't consciously noticed? Listen now to part one of The Unconscious Mind. Part two arrives in July. This episode was edited and mixed by Tuomo Tiisala and Anni Räty.  Music by Tuomo Tiisala and Gregor Greslehner. Special thanks to Béatrice Longuenesse, Katarina Kraus, and Tuomo Tiisala. Questions or comments? Write to kic@ceu.edu. [kic@ceu.edu.]

E7 — Pseudoscience (with Gregor Greslehner)

Pseudoscience is everywhere: from astrology, to flat earth theory and homeopathy. But what about the murkier cases? Psychoanalysis (at least, according to Karl Popper!) and anti-aging claims appear to be grounded in science, yet when you look closer, can their claims actually hold up to proper scientific scrutiny? And what happens when a theory, like creationism, doesn't even try — simply ignoring scientific facts altogether? Where does real science end and pseudoscience begin, and how is pseudoscience different from simply bad science?   Elek Lane and Tuomo Tiisala sit down with Gregor Greslehner (University of Vienna), a postdoctoral researcher with degrees in both molecular biology and philosophy, to map out the spectrum from science to bad science to pseudoscience. Listen in as they unpick the boundaries between them, and come away better equipped to spot the next pseudoscientific claim headed your way. This episode was edited and mixed by Tuomo Tiisala.  Music by Tuomo Tiisala and Gregor Greslehner. Special thanks to Gregor Greslehner, Elek Lane, and Tuomo Tiisala. Questions or comments? Write to kic@ceu.edu. [kic@ceu.edu.]

E6 — Explanation (with Benjamin Schnieder)

Every parent knows the moment. You give an explanation, and back comes the follow-up: but why? It turns out, that relentless childhood question contains more value than we know. Explanations are how we make sense of the world — connecting causes to effects, tracing events back to their origins. But is that really all they are? And does every question actually have an answer, or are some things just... the way they are? In this episode, hosted by Paulina Sliwa (University of Vienna) and Gregor Greslehner (University of Vienna), we dig into the surprising depth hiding behind everyday explanations. We explore where we use different types of explanations for different purposes, whether an explanation can still be useful even if it isn't strictly true, and how to improve in telling a genuinely good explanation from one that just sounds convincing.   From brute facts, mathematics, and how & why questions to the foundations of understanding, this is a conversation about the questions beneath the questions Benjamin Schnieder is Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Vienna. He is also a Key Researcher for Knowledge in Crisis. This episode was edited by Anni Räty and mixed by Tuomo Tiisala.  Music by Tuomo Tiisala and Gregor Greslehner. Special thanks to Gregor Greslehner, Benjamin Schnieder and Paulina Sliwa. Questions or comments? Write to kic@ceu.edu. [kic@ceu.edu.]

E5 — The AGI Question (with Tim Crane and Simon Rippon)

What does it really mean to create a machine that thinks? Postdoctoral Researcher Audrey Powers (University of Vienna) speaks with philosophers Tim Crane and Simon Rippon (Central European University) to unpack the concept of Artificial General Intelligence — what it is, whether it exists, and whether it ever could. From programming, neural networks and reinforcement learning to questions of consciousness, cognition, and similarities between human and machine processing, the conversation ranges across some of the deepest problems in philosophy of mind. And with so much hype surrounding AI, they ask: is AGI a genuine scientific frontier, or just the latest marketing exercise — and what are the dangers either way? Tim Crane is Professor of Philosophy and Pro-Rector for Foresight and Analysis at Central European University. He is also the Director of Research for Knowledge in Crisis. Simon Rippon is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Central European University. He is also a Key Researcher for Knowledge in Crisis. This episode was produced by Jason Means and edited by Anni Räty.  Music by Tuomo Tiisala and Gregor Greslehner. Special thanks to Tim Crane, Audrey Powers and Simon Rippon. Questions or comments? Write to kic@ceu.edu. [kic@ceu.edu.]

E4 — Objectivity (with Sophie Veigl)

In this episode, we ask whether academic philosophy is facing a crisis of knowledge — and what that might mean for science.   What does objectivity really mean today? Is it a timeless ideal, or a set of established standards shaped by particular perspectives? If we all speak from our own positionality, can we ever be truly objective?   Our guest Sophie Veigl (University of Vienna) explores the idea that science doesn’t deliver truth as a finished product, but operates as a process — one that is reliable, yet not without weaknesses. Could philosophy play a stronger role within the sciences, helping to address structural problems and shift the conversation away from abstract ideals like “pure objectivity” and toward a more honest engagement with positionality?   Tune in for a conversation about knowledge, perspective, and whether rethinking objectivity might actually strengthen — rather than undermine — science. This episode was produced by Jason Means and edited by Anni Räty.  Music by Tuomo Tiisala and Gregor Greslehner. Special thanks to Gregor Greslehner, Matt Dougherty, and Sophie Veigl. Questions or comments? Write to kic@ceu.edu. [kic@ceu.edu.]