Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 338 posts

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#31

Post by edna314 »

tmalsburg2 wrote: post #22
goto11 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche can be reduced to just making definitions.

Why? Could you please elaborate(

For example take this quote from Nietzsche on the sentence "I think" from Beyond Good and Evil:

>"When I analyze the process that is expressed in this sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove—for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I know what thinking is.

Good luck convincing a skeptic like that to take your definitions for granted, or believe in any conclusions you draw from your definitions.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#32

Post by opaque »

> So pure theory is not for everyone. But if you love theory, philosophy is the top of the heap of all the disciplines.

I think calling philosophy "theory" is a bit of a reach. Theories (Relativity, Quantum, Evolution) draw on, and can be falsified by, direct evidence. Philosophy is more argumentation on subjects that won't have scientific basis (morality, meaning of life) or don't yet have one and may never (consciousness).

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#33

Post by sago »

visarga wrote: post #4

I don't think philosophy is keeping up with the progress in AI, neuroscience and game theory. If it did, there would be less discussion about the 'Chinese room', qualia and 'hard problem' of consciousness. Instead, we'd head about embodiment, rewards, agents vs environments, learning, representation, exploration-exploitation tradeoff, and such. There are theories of language and meaning in philosophy, but in AI there…

I am not a philosopher, but I would respectfully suggest the problem may be more that you not keeping up with philosophy. Your timescales also seem a bit strange.

I was last in an academic context with philosophers of mind in the mid-90s, at which point Searle's Chinese room was already considered a tired argument (it was seen as an argument to incredulity). The hard problem of consciousness and qualia seem odd to present as worth 'leaving behind': they are surely even more pressing as synthetic thought becomes more capable. More than one of the other areas you suggest were certainly active research in the 90s. (Though I was on the periphery, looking at evolutionary engineering, the research group that I was part of contained both scientists and philosophers of mind and was focused on cognition and affect, most definitely including rewards, agents, learning and representation). So I wonder whether the issue is what you hear about rather than what philosophy is being done.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#34

Post by Emma_Goldman »

wwweston wrote: post #8
visarga wrote: post #4

I don't think philosophy is keeping up with the progress in AI, neuroscience and game theory. If it did, there would be less discussion about the 'Chinese room', qualia and 'hard problem' of consciousness. Instead, we'd head about embodiment, rewards, agents vs environments, learning, representation, exploration-exploitation tradeoff, and such. There are theories of language and meaning in philosophy, but in AI there…

It does seem that when one characterizes philosophy as engineering without the details, it's likely to look inferior to engineering.

Exactly. The OP has a very parochial view of philosophy, and what philosophers study.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#35

Post by YorkshireSeason »

gepi79 wrote: post #10
visarga wrote: post #4

I don't think philosophy is keeping up with the progress in AI, neuroscience and game theory. If it did, there would be less discussion about the 'Chinese room', qualia and 'hard problem' of consciousness. Instead, we'd head about embodiment, rewards, agents vs environments, learning, representation, exploration-exploitation tradeoff, and such. There are theories of language and meaning in philosophy, but in AI there…

IMO, progress in philosophy leads to science. First you think and imagine (philosophy) then you try and know and have made progress (science). From the article: Yes (with qualification) and yes. Already in Republic (Plato again!) we have an argument—a clear and compelling rational argument—that even the highest political office should be open to women. The argument? List what it takes to be a good leader of the state…

   Already in Republic
Given that Plato's Republic was written over 2000 years ago, that's pretty weak a claim to progress in philosophy.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#36

Post by Ephem »

MrScruff wrote: post #13

Could someone with better understanding explain compatibalism to me? I’m struggling to grasp how it can allow for both determinism and free will.

As Wikipedia phrases Harry G. Frankfurt (1969): "A compatibilist can believe that a person can choose between many choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors"

A bit sloppily put, a compatibilist believes a choice is free if the agent making it is not coerced or constrainted, even if the choice that the agent will make is determined.

Different compatibilists approach this as either being descriptive (this is how we tend to actually make moral judgements), or normative (free will is defined in these terms and moral responsibility for our actions follows from that).

Most incompatibilists agree that "freedom to act" is a necessary criterion for free will, but not that it is sufficient.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#37

Post by amelius »

opaque wrote: post #32

> So pure theory is not for everyone. But if you love theory, philosophy is the top of the heap of all the disciplines. I think calling philosophy "theory" is a bit of a reach. Theories (Relativity, Quantum, Evolution) draw on, and can be falsified by, direct evidence. Philosophy is more argumentation on subjects that won't have scientific basis (morality, meaning of life) or don't yet have one and may never (conscio…

But remember that the scientific method itself is defined by philosophers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#38

Post by Emma_Goldman »

Interesting interview.

"Already in Republic (Plato again!) we have an argument—a clear and compelling rational argument—that even the highest political office should be open to women.'

What is not specified here is the sense of 'rationality' that is required of moral realism. It is not enough that something be coherently deduced from stated premises, because we can state different premises, use different categories, and make different distinctions. What is required is that there is a sense in which we can all be rationally compelled through argumentation to adopt the same premises, categories and distinctions. And that is, frankly, absurd and untrue.

'People are free when they are unconstrained and can act as they will to act.'

Again, the argument depends on (i) that you accept the post-Hobbesian account of negative liberty, and not the Hegelian account of positive liberty, or the neo-Roman account of liberty as freedom from domination, or the various socialist accounts of liberty (and again, whether we do goes back to the first point viz. what premises we start from, and what categories we use); (ii) and upon specifying what it is to be 'constrained', especially whether this involves mental, and not just physical, interference.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#39

Post by Emma_Goldman »

opaque wrote: post #32

> So pure theory is not for everyone. But if you love theory, philosophy is the top of the heap of all the disciplines. I think calling philosophy "theory" is a bit of a reach. Theories (Relativity, Quantum, Evolution) draw on, and can be falsified by, direct evidence. Philosophy is more argumentation on subjects that won't have scientific basis (morality, meaning of life) or don't yet have one and may never (conscio…

You are confusing 'scientific theory' with the term 'theory', which is far looser, i.e. a system of ideas.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#40

Post by Veedrac »

majewsky wrote: post #28
Veedrac wrote: post #17

Is it just me or is the title not supported by the article?

Just you. :) It probably refers to this part: > Q: Your colleague David Chalmers has fretted that “there has not been large collective convergence to the truth on the big questions of philosophy,” such as God, free will and consciousness. Does this lack of convergence bother you? > A: I disagree with Dave here. Overwhelmingly most philosophers are atheists or agnostics, which I take to be convergence to the truth. Mo…

This is a general claim about the highly educated. People with degrees are much more likely to be atheist, hold a coherent view about free will, and believe in consciousness without being able to explain it.

This isn't evidence of philosophy making progress, because atheism among the educated is a scientific and cultural trend, the debate about consciousness is primarily an ancient fight about definitions, and believing in consciousness without being able to explain it is certainly not progress in any productive sense.

Post reply on HN