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

81–90 of 112 posts

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

#81

Post by ryanklee »

robotresearcher wrote: post #79
tempodox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History, for instance, is not part of STEM.

Have you heard of Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Leibniz, Pythagoras, Einstein, Aristotle, Curie, and Turing? Do you know what they did and a little about their lives? They were likely all dead before you were born. Do you know some things about the Manhattan Project, Bell Labs, Bletchley Park, the Apollo Project, the Gutenberg press, the invention of carbon steel? That’s history.

He is referencing the field of History, not history.

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

#82

Post by ryanklee »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #71
ryanklee wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think that those individuals are representative of the value of the field of humanities? Sorry, but that's just a red herring. I mean, I'm suspicious of individuals who can't hack it in general, too, but not sure how that's relevant.

you are pointing out I did a poor job of distinguishing the material itself and the current pedagogy surrounding it. I’m skeptical of the latter, not the former, if that helps clarify my position.

That makes sense. No disagreement there. Thank you for clarifying your position.

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

#83

Post by robotresearcher »

ryanklee wrote: post #81
robotresearcher wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Leibniz, Pythagoras, Einstein, Aristotle, Curie, and Turing? Do you know what they did and a little about their lives? They were likely all dead before you were born. Do you know some things about the Manhattan Project, Bell Labs, Bletchley Park, the Apollo Project, the Gutenberg press, the invention of carbon steel? That’s history.

He is referencing the field of History, not history.

I do not understand the distinction.

I’ll go further. If I said ‘he was referencing Science, not science’ would that make any sense?

I was a CS professor for a long time. Like many of my STEM colleagues, I taught the history of the ideas in my discipline as an intrinsic and important part of the curriculum. It’s also good pedagogy, since the long process of getting closer to the truth or developing more powerful technology is part of the toolbox we are trying to impart.

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

#84

Post by anon84873628 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #60
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand why you're making this argument. It seems to basically be about the semantics of "deterministic" (or not) when composing different systems, which isn't really relevant to the original point.

Just because some macro systems can be non-deterministic doesn't mean they all are. If you have non-deterministic binary inputs to an AND gate, do you really mean to say the AND gate is not deterministic?

The statistical effects that reliably turn individual gas molecule motion into PV=nRT, are just as reliable in biochemistry.

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

#85

Post by hackinthebochs »

ryanklee wrote: post #67
hackinthebochs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked at it. Randomly opened a couple of links, none of which really support the idea of NDT thinking humanities are worthless. All I see are a lot of overinterpreting and misrepresentations for the sake of using popular guys as a jumping-off point for one's own defensive screed. If you have a specific citation that you feel best represents the case against NDT or Hawking, I'm happy to consider it.

Sure. Please tell me how I can possibly read this interview in any other way than NDT doesn't see the value in philosophy: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse... As far as I can tell, he doesn't say one charitable thing, and more, his attitude comes off as smug and arrogant.

That post is really a case-in-point of overinterpreting and using a popular commentator as a jumping-off point for one's own screed. Pigliucci's response doesn't really engage with a charitable interpretation of what NDT actually said about philosophy, but extrapolates the actual claims to a broad derision which motivates Pigliucci's much wider defense. The two substantive claims NDT makes is that it's hard to move forward when you're endlessly debating the meaning of terms and that philosophy that purports to describe the natural world is obsolete. He concedes other humanistic areas like religion, politics and so on are fruitful philosophical areas.

What NDT is guilty of in the minds of so many of the commentators is not having what they consider due reverence and deference to philosophy. What none of the responses do is justify the supposed reverence scientists and popular culture more broadly should have. The points about philosophy being dead in the context of describing the physical world appear to be true. The point about philosophy not making progress (understood in the way that science makes progress) appears to be true. If the only claim to value one can make is for activity that happened centuries ago (being the forebearer to science), then philosophy truly is dead. While Pigliucci's points in defense of philosophy are true, they still don't tell us why anyone outside of philosophy should care about philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a philosophy hater. I quite enjoy philosophy, I read an awful lot of it. But this is because I like puzzles and I like navigating conceptual spaces and gaining deep understanding. But this isn't all that relevant to most people's lives. You want people to care about philosophy, you need to be relevant to them. Philosophy is failing at being relevant.

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

#86

Post by pineaux »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #30
pineaux wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I¹ get it. The STEM educated people are better at technical stuff like math and logic, thus they must be a lot more enlightened than these non-STEM journalists that walk around in the darkness of the intellectual void. We smart, They stupid. /s You should ask yourself where this arrogance stems (so punny) from. Although you could argue that the liberal arts/humanities are stifled by leftist worldviews, which is true,…

I find it very suspicious that people who avoid learning rhetoric, or formal logic, or axiomatic thinking in general, are able to draw useful conclusions from studying humanities.

I find it fascinating that "STEM people" think all problems are best solved with logic and rhetoric instead of intuition and anecdotal evidence. While in real life many things simply cannot be measured and we must act on hunches or "feelings" and many, many people are very successful in navigating the world without any education in the (powerful, but very narrow) tools of formal logic, rhetoric and axiomatic thinking. That is precisely the reason humanities have value: it is because they foster other ways of approaching the world. It is not about truth in the absolute ways that make STEM so appealing (and very narrow). It is more about fluid truth of finding patterns in the total of human experience. These truths can likewise be harnessed and formalised into institutions and systems that work on shared belief systems that are not necessarily logical, but do work nonetheless. Its basic selection. You need a wide pool of ideas to get the best ideas.

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

#87

Post by chr1 »

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…

Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. The submitted article is a good illustration why.

There are two hypotheses: one is that consciousness is essentially a computation, the other that it is an unknowable stuff. Philosophers spend time talking how one or the other hypothesis "feels right" to them. Scientists try to see what results can be obtained through computation.

Now we got to the point where we have automaton talking. Still very very far from understanding how brain works, but an interesting discovery on the way to it. Meanwhile, what philosophers have to say is still as uninteresting and irrelevant as it was in 1879...

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

#88

Post by ryanklee »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #85
ryanklee wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Please tell me how I can possibly read this interview in any other way than NDT doesn't see the value in philosophy: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse... As far as I can tell, he doesn't say one charitable thing, and more, his attitude comes off as smug and arrogant.

That post is really a case-in-point of overinterpreting and using a popular commentator as a jumping-off point for one's own screed. Pigliucci's response doesn't really engage with a charitable interpretation of what NDT actually said about philosophy, but extrapolates the actual claims to a broad derision which motivates Pigliucci's much wider defense. The two substantive claims NDT makes is that it's hard to move f…

Those are his words. They are not out of context.

I don't see how any of that negates the effect of one of science's pre-eminent public advocates bad mouthing philosophy and the humanities. People hear this and take it at face value. It informs their opinions. It shapes their lives. And it's his purpose to shape people lives. He is partially responsible for the proliferation of similar views throughout the intellectual ecosystem. On this point, he is being irresponsible and ignorant. He ought to have and communicate more nuanced views of the world.

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how their is anything but a tortured defense of his behavior on this front.

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

robotresearcher wrote: post #83
ryanklee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is referencing the field of History, not history.

I do not understand the distinction. I’ll go further. If I said ‘he was referencing Science, not science’ would that make any sense? I was a CS professor for a long time. Like many of my STEM colleagues, I taught the history of the ideas in my discipline as an intrinsic and important part of the curriculum. It’s also good pedagogy, since the long process of getting closer to the truth or developing more powerful tech…

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by hackinthebochs »

ryanklee wrote: post #88
hackinthebochs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That post is really a case-in-point of overinterpreting and using a popular commentator as a jumping-off point for one's own screed. Pigliucci's response doesn't really engage with a charitable interpretation of what NDT actually said about philosophy, but extrapolates the actual claims to a broad derision which motivates Pigliucci's much wider defense. The two substantive claims NDT makes is that it's hard to move f…

Those are his words. They are not out of context. I don't see how any of that negates the effect of one of science's pre-eminent public advocates bad mouthing philosophy and the humanities. People hear this and take it at face value. It informs their opinions. It shapes their lives. And it's his purpose to shape people lives. He is partially responsible for the proliferation of similar views throughout the intellectu…

Man, if philosophy can't take (an admittedly popular) guy saying rather milquetoast things about philosophy (whether right or wrong), the discipline is in worse shape than I thought. Philosophy should be capable of defending itself, it shouldn't need to rely on deferential treatment and a widespread presumption of value.

Philosophy doesn't deserve deference or respect simply because it's an academic discipline. We've been far too deferential to questionable disciplines and their practitioners, and the academy is in bad shape because of it. Disciplines should be constantly challenged and expected to offer full throated defenses of their merits. If philosophy wants to be valued, it needs to actively demonstrate it's value. if the only thing it can do is get defensive when someone says something negative publicly about it, we might as well just shut it all down now because there's truly nothing left.

Post reply on HN