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

"Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

psychclassics.yorku.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#51

Post by karaterobot »

dnissley wrote: post #29
ryanklee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agreed. I find it embarrassing how STEM devalued non-STEM studies for years, and now that LLMs are center stage, so is the near-universal unpreparedness of interested parties and stakeholders to wrestle with issues of cognition, consciousness, and ethics. This, despite literally thousands of years of prior studies on these matters. Even now, I see basic refusal to engage with this extant literature, and a…

> STEM devalued non-STEM studies for years What does this refer to?

Figuratively, how all my physicist and computer science friends rolled their eyes when I took degrees in the humanities. Literally, how true the joke is about the difference between an English major and a large pepperoni pizza is that the pizza can feed a family of three. On the other hand, the humanities did plenty to devalue itself, by adopting the view that 'value' itself is likely a social construct.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#52

Post by ryanklee »

zo1 wrote: post #48
ryanklee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agreed. I find it embarrassing how STEM devalued non-STEM studies for years, and now that LLMs are center stage, so is the near-universal unpreparedness of interested parties and stakeholders to wrestle with issues of cognition, consciousness, and ethics. This, despite literally thousands of years of prior studies on these matters. Even now, I see basic refusal to engage with this extant literature, and a…

This is because the humanities got taken over in some sense and filled with mumbo jumbo. Technical people don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole. Besides, science used to be very much a "thinkers" only thing, because only those people went into studies instead of just being laborers. These were people that would question and ponder the things you mention. These days, STEM is filled with factory widget repeater…

> humanities got taken over in some sense and filled with mumbo jumbo

This is exactly the kind of opinion that results from improper familiarization with the various sub-fields of the humanities. Is there bullshit? Yes. Is it typical? Absolutely not.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#53

Post by kbenson »

ryanklee wrote: post #46
Avicebron wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it in general refers to a (seeming) lack of awareness/acknowledgement of non-stem topics like philosophy, theology, ethics, history, etc. I'm not sure I would phrase it as STEM itself devaluing non-stem (I mean it's an acronym for subjects) but, rather society in general devaluing these, example, how hard is it go out, get a philosophy degree, and practice/write that and live comfortably with that occupation…

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Carl Sagan would have been a much better steward for science today, as he had a very healthy respect for…

Has NDT been saying that? I wouldn't know, since I mostly consume him as small segments of larger appearances, but it seems half the time he's conversing with someone he's spouting philosophy as he sees it, so it would be surprising to me that he denigrates it.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#54

Post by hackinthebochs »

ryanklee wrote: post #46
Avicebron wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it in general refers to a (seeming) lack of awareness/acknowledgement of non-stem topics like philosophy, theology, ethics, history, etc. I'm not sure I would phrase it as STEM itself devaluing non-stem (I mean it's an acronym for subjects) but, rather society in general devaluing these, example, how hard is it go out, get a philosophy degree, and practice/write that and live comfortably with that occupation…

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Carl Sagan would have been a much better steward for science today, as he had a very healthy respect for…

>Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think.

Neither of them has said anything like this. Hawking's "philosophy (metaphysics) is dead" is a narrow point about the relevance of philosophy to basic theorizing about nature. NDT said something along the lines of he doesn't have time for questions like "what is the meaning of meaning". Neither can be reasonably construed as denigrating humanities. There have been a lot of folks on the other side who have put words into the mouths of these two for the sake of self-promotion. It's created a very warped perspective on what Hawkings and NDT actually believe.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#55

Post by ryanklee »

kbenson wrote: post #53
ryanklee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Carl Sagan would have been a much better steward for science today, as he had a very healthy respect for…

Has NDT been saying that? I wouldn't know, since I mostly consume him as small segments of larger appearances, but it seems half the time he's conversing with someone he's spouting philosophy as he sees it, so it would be surprising to me that he denigrates it.

1. Tyson dismissed the intellectual value of philosophy in a podcast, which led to criticism from those within the discipline[1].

2. He has been quoted saying, "What they teach in the humanities is not 'skepticism' or 'critical thinking.' It's mental masturbation disguised as critical thinking"[5].

3. Tyson warned that philosophy "can really mess you up" and has implied that philosophy does not progress in the way science does[5].

4. His attitude towards philosophy has been characterized as science-defeating by some, as it dismisses the role of philosophy in addressing moral and aesthetic questions that science cannot answer[6].

5. Tyson's comments have sparked discussions and defenses of the humanities and philosophy, with critics arguing that his views are overly simplistic and do not represent the true value and diversity of philosophical inquiry[1][4][5][6].

[1] Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Wrong about Philosophy https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2014/05/13/neil-degrasse-tyso...

[2] An Open Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2521di/an_open_...

[3] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-v...

[4] Why Does Neil deGrasse Tyson Hate Philosophy? https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_doe...

[5] Please Save Me from Neil DeGrasse Tyson https://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/please-save-me-from-neil-de...

[6] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy - 3 Quarks Daily https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/05/neil-degrasse-...

[7] Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientism and the Scapegoating of Philosophy http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/05/neil-deg...

[8] Maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Embrace The Humanities More https://terribleminds.com/ramble/2018/03/06/maybe-neil-degra...

[9] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins on how philosophy has ... https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2554xu/neil_deg...

[10] 225 thoughts on “Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy” https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physici...

[11] Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong to dismiss all of philosophy, but he may have a point on some of it https://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/05/14/more-thoughts-on-ne...

[12] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Philosophy: The Voice and Never-Was of Science Insults the Foundation of All Intellectual Thought https://milliern.com/2014/05/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-phil...

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#56

Post by dimal »

karaterobot wrote: post #51
dnissley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> STEM devalued non-STEM studies for years What does this refer to?

Figuratively, how all my physicist and computer science friends rolled their eyes when I took degrees in the humanities. Literally, how true the joke is about the difference between an English major and a large pepperoni pizza is that the pizza can feed a family of three. On the other hand, the humanities did plenty to devalue itself, by adopting the view that 'value' itself is likely a social construct.

> On the other hand, the humanities did plenty to devalue itself, by adopting the view that 'value' itself is likely a social construct.

Bwahh! Sick burn.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#57

Post by ryanklee »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #54
ryanklee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Carl Sagan would have been a much better steward for science today, as he had a very healthy respect for…

>Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Neither of them has said anything like this. Hawking's "philosophy (metaphysics) is dead" is a narrow point about the relevance of philosophy to basic theorizing about nature. NDT said something along…

This is not correct. See my comment with numerous citations.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#58

Post by Kim_Bruning »

kouru225 wrote: post #32

When people say we’re nothing but computers, neurons firing, chemical reactions, etc they think they’re saying that humans aren’t special. But I take it to mean that the rest of the world is way more special than we’ve been giving it credit for.

By this point I think the "nothing but" part is the bit that's actually wrong.

It's about putting yourself up on a pedestal while downplaying others.

Of course, at some point those "others" (be it peoples, genders, creatures, or machines) turn out to be as good or better at certain things than you are. And what do you do then? You won't have anywhere to go psychologically without devaluing yourself.

So then you end up shutting down avenues of thought that might otherwise have been productive.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#59

Post by [deleted] »

mgaunard wrote: post #39
operatingthetan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I entertain the idea that inanimate objects have consciousness too and it's pretty disturbing because it would mean we are doing pretty much everything wrong.

Do we even have consciousness or merely the illusion of it?

[deleted]

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#60

Post by AnotherGoodName »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #49
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #31

Fwiw nothing with outside influence is automata as the true randomness from quantum phenomena propagates. Eg. If you take in real world visual input to a system that from that point on is deterministic the output of that system is now non-deterministic. Similar to how Shrodinger talked about the macro scale cat being alive and dead at the same time. So the arguments that the neurons in the brain are deterministic or…

As far as we've been able to determine, almost all macroscopic objects can be behaviorally described in terms of classical physics, and this includes neurons. Even in rare cases where quantum effects are seen, such as photosynthesis, or radioactive decay, it's extremely localized. The fact that a plant's efficiency of conversion of light to chemical energy appears to use quantum effects doesn't affect the rest of the…

There can be macro objects with non-determinism. The cat in the box in the Shrodinger experiment has deterministic neurons but you don't actually know the state of the cat as a whole due to the initial quantum event that set the entirity of the cat on one path or another.

This is where the entire problem with the thought that systems are deterministic or not comes into play. If there's a single photon that can hit a pixel on a sensor (or retina) or not and that ultimately has a cascading effect to make that larger object do something completely different or not then that larger object is non-deterministic as a whole. Yes as others have stated there's ways in which non-deterministic inputs can end up not mattering - the system has the same output. But there's also systems, eg. the cat in the box experiment, where the macro object ends up taking on the non-determinism of a single quantum event.

An AI that can behaive one way or the other based on what it read into the sensor input is absolutely as non-deterministic as that input. Likewise humans are as non-deterministic as their inputs. If a photon can hit your eye today and cause a flash of light that sets you on the path of doing something you otherwise wouldn't have done it doesn't matter if your neurons are essentially a machine or not. You are still non-deterministic. The focus on neurons being deterministic or not kind of misses the bigger picture. We absolutely live in a non-deterministic world and those inputs from this world cause ourselves to ultimately be non-deterministic.

This really gets down to the regularly discussed thought experiment of simulating a human. If you fully simulated a human with non-deterministic inputs everywhere you probably would indeed have a fully deterministic system. But that's just not how the real world environment a human is in behaves.

Post reply on HN