Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress • Hacker News Board

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#261

Post by ripsawridge » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

szemet wrote: post #250

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

You know the problem, you know the solution and we doesn't even have to think about it: irrationality is ok if you have small environmental footprint. So this is the relevation needed by the "world" to be saved... And now, if we can't afford people with different preferences, or intellectual interest (or - I guess - those who disagree the above - for some reason), what to do with them?

I think we should have room for people with many different preferences and intellectual interests.

I would never ask someone to do a thing or live a way that they don't agree with. I'd only ask them to fully understand what their way is...how it affects the fabric of the world. If they pursue their interest with full depth, they'll eventually understand. And then they'll do the right thing.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#262

Post by ripsawridge » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #244

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

Zen monks usually don't share ideas. They try to share experiences, about certain possibilities of the human mind, and how they feel. But those are weird, complex, possibly frightening, and they are also sometimes mis-communicated[1]. Also - they challenge deeply held personal beliefs. So it's natural that people will resist. [1]The nature of enlightenment was always hard to explain. Until you listen to Gary Weber( h…

Yes, good point. The enlightenment experience can't be explained in tidy bullet points. It doesn't even seem interesting to most people. You can't help but use paradox in your words, and then folks even get offended.

I admit that we may just be at a dead end with our current consciousnesses in the mass. Some individuals find a way "through," but on the whole most of us will be happy denying most of reality and we'll burn out because of that (resource depletion).

I guess it just chaps my hide to see somebody who is a "professional knower" about this stuff being smug and on top of the world when he obfuscates far more than he explains. I'll hit the hay :).

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#263

Post by canhascodez » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #239

mfoy_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying humans are infallible, but trying to argue that "the scientific method isn't perfect because people aren't perfect" is nonsense, especially if the conclusion you want to draw is that "therefore we should respect faith as an alternative means of determining truth". The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. In fact, it's practical…

> The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. I agree. But I also believe freedom is better than slavery. I value wisdom over ignorance. And I believe those things without any proof. The scientific method cannot prove to me that murder is wrong, and yet I hold it to be true. So despite the fact that I agree with the power of the scientific metho…

I think that it's a problem when we talk about the outputs of different forms of verification as if those things shared a common identity. They may share a similar property of undeniability, but they are not the same thing, and in point of fact, they are not comparable. The phrase "freedom is better than slavery" is not better or worse than "1 + 1 = 2" or "water boils at 100 C". I think that the idea of a singular thing called "truth" is actually fairly harmful.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#264

Post by InitialLastName » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

sheepmullet wrote: post #242

mfoy_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good response! To add to your points, GP also misses a really important distinction between science and religion and the way each system arrives at conclusions. Science is merely a set of tools and processes, nothing more. Seriously, NOTHING more. If, as GP says, you are taking it on faith that some "scientific conclusion" is true, you're merely deferring expertise on the matter. Much like when your tech support guy…

> With Religion, there is nothing you can do to understand it. I don’t think that’s true - I think an atheist can gain a lot of understanding about human nature by reading religious works. > you cannot do anything to investigate the veracity of those claims. Truly, this is the most authoritarian of world views In practice that is true for science too. I take it on faith that scientists are trustworthy and doing their…

> I don’t think that’s true - I think an atheist can gain a lot of understanding about human nature by reading religious works.

As an example, Leviticus is fascinating if read as "here's the political structure of a herding culture". It's visibly more of a constitution than a religious text, including the allocation of taxes, a permanent administrator class, a penal system, and a statute of limitations on debt.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#265

Post by ThomPete » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:20 PM UTC

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

You cannot not have growth at all cost if you want to survive.

Technology is a natural part of evolution and if you do not adapt to that you will not survive.

What you can have is growth with a less negative impact which will be incentivized by growth. But you can't suddenly stop growth and expect the results to be positive and the only reason you can even think about it being possible today is that you are piggybacking on what growth made possible.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#266

Post by mruniverse » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

camelNotation wrote: post #235

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

I like you. There's been a total over-correction away from religion and we've lost sight of why it evolved in the first place. Social scientists have long known that there is nothing rational about the decisions we make, and certainly not in groups. Religion may have led us to quite a bit of violence in the past and might not have given us self-driving cars, but simply understanding the universe is not going to be en…

But religion asks you to believe in something there’s no evidence for. To commit your life to it. Then when challenged, it asks that you disprove it.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#267

Post by gjm11 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #247

gjm11 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I believe in science because it works" is not an argumentum ad consequentiam. What characterizes an AaC is the following structure: if X were true then the consequences would be good/bad; therefore X is (probably) true/false. So if eli_gottlieb were saying "I believe in science because it would be lovely if science were right", that would be an AaC. But that's not at all what he's saying. The form of his argument is…

See how you used the word seem there? That's where the little faith bits seep in. In the seems.

The only point I was making is that Eli's comment was not, contrary to your claim, an argumentum ad consequentiam. That's an entirely separate question from (e.g.) whether it involves something you can call "faith".

But: If you define "faith" broadly enough then sure, everything with any element of belief to it involves "faith". Derive everything rigorously from axioms? That means having "faith" in your axioms! Do literally anything else at all? That means taking a step at some point that doesn't have a watertight logical justification, so it's "faith"! -- So, sure, Eli's argument (or at least my sketchy reconstruction of it) involves an element of "faith", just like literally every other argument anyone could ever possibly make.

I guess this is what you mean by denying "that truth is knowable". If by "knowable" you mean "... with literally no room for any sort of uncertainty" then I vigorously agree with you -- but I have the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you were offering this as some sort of correction or education for eli_gottlieb, and I see no reason to think he needs it. All he's said is that he believes in science because it works, and that is perfectly consistent with taking "believe" to mean "accept as our current best approximation, to the best of our knowledge, to the truth, with the understanding that later discoveries might change our opinions greatly" or something of the sort.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#268

Post by RichardCA » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:27 PM UTC

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

My understanding has always been that, while some Buddhists do in fact proclaim belief in various deities (Tibetan Buddhism in particular), there is always an acknowledgement that they only exist in the realm of the mind. That is, subjective experience is elevated and the idea that "objective reality" can be experienced is discarded. The common word for this is Nondualism. And this Tim Maudlin person does confess to being a non-dualist.

I agree that the tone of the Scientific American article was annoying and somewhat condescending. But overall I don't have any issue with the ideas presented. I don't see the conflict.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#269

Post by canhascodez » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #67

majewsky wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When most ancient philosophers were theists and believed in libertarian free will and an immaterial soul, was that a convergence to the truth, too?

I'm not sure what point you're making. When people believed in a flat Earth, or geocentrism, or miracles, those things did not contradict empirical knowledge of the world. Since then, we have established empiricism as the most useful tool for examining the real world, and expanded the scope of human knowledge considerably. I'm not sure what about that you might take issue with.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#270

Post by petra » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

ripsawridge wrote: post #262

petra wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zen monks usually don't share ideas. They try to share experiences, about certain possibilities of the human mind, and how they feel. But those are weird, complex, possibly frightening, and they are also sometimes mis-communicated[1]. Also - they challenge deeply held personal beliefs. So it's natural that people will resist. [1]The nature of enlightenment was always hard to explain. Until you listen to Gary Weber( h…

Yes, good point. The enlightenment experience can't be explained in tidy bullet points. It doesn't even seem interesting to most people. You can't help but use paradox in your words, and then folks even get offended. I admit that we may just be at a dead end with our current consciousnesses in the mass. Some individuals find a way "through," but on the whole most of us will be happy denying most of reality and we'll…

I agree that enlightening isn't interesting for most. It But Even if the Enlightenment experience was interesting to most people, i get the feeling it would be too hard, out of reach for most.

But the research about it seems to be advancing nicely(Gary weber is a good starting source for that too), and the problem of the extreme cost of the relevant tool for training/research - the fmri - may be soon solved by a startup, openwatr.

So maybe this could still be a part of the solution to the resource depletion problem.