What's the point of philosophy any more?

[polymath257]

Similarly with continuous nowhere differentiable functions.

This is offtopic, I know, but I am curious about this one. Maybe, when you have the time, head to the maths thread and elaborate on that? Because I can't think think of a function like that at all.

See the 'Studying Mathematics' thread.

[bennyboy]

You have to love it, or you're doing it wrong!

That comes awfully close to what the religious say about finding faith.

It's in the word.  I didn't make it.

Seriously, though, you can call it whatever you want, but people have a lot of free time and they're going to ask questions. Those questions which aren't explicitly pragmatic, like "How do I bake a cake?" are philosophical. If you have a problem with philosophy, you have a problem with questions-- and that's the sign of a dull mind, indeed.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Seriously, though, you can call it whatever you want, but people have a lot of free time and they're going to ask questions.  Those questions which aren't explicitly pragmatic, like "How do I bake a cake?" are philosophical.  If you have a problem with philosophy, you have a problem with questions-- and that's the sign of a dull mind, indeed.

But we have many different specialised fields to deal with those questions. And as we learn more we become more specialised. Philosophy has to be more than asking questions which aren't explicitly pragmatic.

Take consciousness for example. You'd think that this would be ideal for philosophy but it's not going to determine what it is because it isn't set up to investigate it and to collect data about it. For that you'd need neuroscience, psychology and artificial intelligence. Philosophy can come along afterwards collecting together all the results from the different sciences and drawing conclusions from them, but the ground work first needs to be done by fields with names which aren't 'Philosophy'.

And you need this data. You can't make any progress just by using logic. We see first hand from the religionists what happens if you try that. The example I use is granite. The lay person term used to be some coarse white / grey / pink crystalline rock but geology started to examine all the different forms of granite and came up with definitions for all the different types that it found. It then started to understand how they formed by coming up with hypotheses, testing them and then collating them into theories. The same process needs to be carried out for consciousness.

Almost all philosophy nowadays seems to be performed by specialists in other fields as part of their work.

[bennyboy]

Take consciousness for example. You'd think that this would be ideal for philosophy but it's not going to determine what it is because it isn't set up to investigate it and to collect data about it. For that you'd need neuroscience, psychology and artificial intelligence. Philosophy can come along afterwards collecting together all the results from the different sciences and drawing conclusions from them, but the ground work first needs to be done by fields with names which aren't 'Philosophy'.

You are discarding philosophy by making an unwarranted philosophical assumption-- a whole chain of them, really.

First of all, your definition of consciousness is going to be hotly challenged by anyone who's not already a material monist.  With regard to a traditional dualist or other world view, you have to either:

1) redefine consciousness in physical terms rather than experiential ones: "Consciousness is the ability to process information from the environment and react to it."
2) make assumptions that beg the question-- for example, that the world is basically as it seems to be, but without explaining why it is so.

Both of these have serious philosophical problems.  In the former case, I would say, "That's fine, but I'm not interested in robots.  I'm interested in the experience of what it's like to be, and I don't think science has even the beginnings of a coherent theory of why I can do that"  In the latter, I would argue that science itself very much undermines the assumptions upon which it largely rests.  The world does not seem to us to be a collection of undefined wave functions, but that's what it is; seeming is over-rated.

--edit--
Since I'm on a rant, let me explain what I think is the most important function of philosophy: it's to define the scope of ideas, i.e. the context in which they are to be considered valid. I cannot prove that anyone else than myself exists, however I find it useful and quite compelling to assume that people are in fact other thinking and feeling entities. My social interactions are defined in that scope: all moral ideas, all political ideas are valid only in the context of real-other.

Science is defined by a belief in an objective physical existence-- something which is compelling but not provable, by observation or otherwise. If you use only science as a tool for investigating reality, then you'll eventually come to the conclusion that all reality consists of an objective physical existence and nothing more than that. This is a scope error-- you are applying knowledge gained within that context to all possible contexts.

[I_am_not_mafia]

First of all, your definition of consciousness is going to be hotly challenged by anyone who's not already a material monist.  With regard to a traditional dualist or other world view, you have to either:

1) redefine consciousness in physical terms rather than experiential ones: "Consciousness is the ability to process information from the environment and react to it."
2) make assumptions that beg the question-- for example, that the world is basically as it seems to be, but without explaining why it is so.

Both of these have serious philosophical problems.  In the former case, I would say, "That's fine, but I'm not interested in robots.  I'm interested in the experience of what it's like to be, and I don't think science has even the beginnings of a coherent theory of why I can do that"  In the latter, I would argue that science itself very much undermines the assumptions upon which it largely rests.  The world does not seem to us to be a collection of undefined wave functions, but that's what it is; seeming is over-rated.

Yeah and if that was likely to work then it would have done so by now. There's been thousands of years to figure out what consciousness is. You specifically use the example of robots when I mentioned both AI, psychology and neuroscience. BY doing this you are implying that we don't need more data to figure out what conscious is or to test hypotheses with experimental models. When experience shows us that the more we learn the more we can reason about a problem and eventually arrive at a conclusion.

What you are talking about is exactly this kind of 'philosophy' that my thread is about. Philosophers are like economists in a way. They introduce the subject by saying how applicable it is, but when it comes down to it they mainly seem interested in forming their own mental models that don't apply to the real world. You are essentially proving the point of my OP. This is the kind of philosophy that needs to die out.

[bennyboy]

Is AI consciousness? I wouldn't say so, or at least I have no reason to believe so. I define consciousness as the awareness of being, not as information processing.

Psychology and neuroscience are great, but they provide a study in correlation: this or that brain part or process is connected to reports of this or that experience, for example. What it doesn't do is to allow us to know whether an arbitrary non-organic-brain-based system experiences qualia. It's fine to study brains, or even information processing in general, but so long as people are interested in that fairly mysterious property of self-knowing that has traditionally been called consciousness, then you have to acknowledge that the science does not very effectively address it.

You talk about the "real world," but I don't think you can define what that even means, at least not precisely. Is the flat surface of my desk real? If so, in what way is it so? In what sense is consciousness related to brain function, exactly? How does consciousness emerge from any physical system, under any process? What, exactly IS a subatomic particle? What does it look like? How does it manifest? You are going to have a really hard time establishing that our Universe is more than the ideas through which we describe it.

Here's the thing. You have limited your thinking to a scope which is defined by a particular philosophical choice-- and then complain that philosophical choices are a waste of your time. You don't get to do that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is AI consciousness?  I wouldn't say so, or at least I have no reason to believe so.  I define consciousness as the awareness of being, not as information processing.

Psychology and neuroscience are great, but they provide a study in correlation: this or that brain part or process is connected to reports of this or that experience, for example.  What it doesn't do is to allow us to know whether an arbitrary non-organic-brain-based system experiences qualia.  

And using your method you'll never define what qualia is, what it isn't, how to recognise it or whether it even exists. Do you honestly believe that just by reasoning about these things without performing studies and experiments that you and your ilk will ever make any progress to the point where the majority will largely agree?

Honestly?

No. It will never happen.

---

 If you use only science as a tool for investigating reality, then you'll eventually come to the conclusion that all reality consists of an objective physical existence and nothing more than that.  

Because we can only investigate what we can observe and test. You seem to be implying the existence of the supernatural, which is by definition, meamingless. Because if it existed, it would be part of nature. And there's no point reasoning about something that we know nothing about, cannot sense or measure or even whether it exists otherwise you just end up exploring fantasies and doesn't provide any new knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moot point between you; as nueroscience, psychology, and ai research all employ philosophy, and philosophy requires the sound inputs of observed facts to function in the manner intended.

There's no reason that science couldn't provide determination for whether or not somethings conscious..and..frankly, it would be difficult to see how philosophy would do that -without- those empirical observations. Maybe science would "redefine" consciousness....relative to some traditional definition..but so what..the traditional definition may be in error. Similarly, so what if science would yield a conclusion that all reality consists of an objective physical existence and nothing more than that? When we need reference of more would be the time that became a problem.

Science isn't going to do any of that..however..none of it..without employing the philosophic principles out of which it's built.

To return to a point jorg made earlier..may as well throw math in there..because math provides a language to describe and conceptualize all of this that is largely devoid of all of the weaknesses of natural language.

[bennyboy]

And using your method you'll never define what qualia is, what it isn't, how to recognise it or whether it even exists. Do you honestly believe that just by reasoning about these things without performing studies and experiments that you and your ilk will ever make any progress to the point where the majority will largely agree?

If pragmatism is truth, then you're right.  But it isn't, and you're not.

I can definitely define what qualia is [sic]. It's the experience of what things are like, including the existence of the self. That you can't hit it with a hammer and therefore want to discard it from any intellectual consideration is your problem, not a problem with philosophy.

At any rate, if you want your world view to be taken as fact, you'll have to move from pragmatic assumptions (read: philosophical choices) and into a world of solid proof. Prove to me that anything exists as you perceive it, and we can talk. With all due respect, I'll refrain from holding my breath while I wait for you to achieve that, because forever is longer than I can hold it.

My approach is to let things live in their correct context. If you're trying to investigate the physical universe, use science. If you're trying to determine how to keep society healthy, use moral philosophy. If you're trying to get in touch with your inner self, sit on a beach and meditate or take drugs. You have to learn to be a little more versatile in your approach to experience, because there are different categories of experience, and an intelligent person will approach them differently.

[polymath257]

And using your method you'll never define what qualia is, what it isn't, how to recognise it or whether it even exists. Do you honestly believe that just by reasoning about these things without performing studies and experiments that you and your ilk will ever make any progress to the point where the majority will largely agree?

If pragmatism is truth, then you're right.  But it isn't, and you're not.

I can definitely define what qualia is [sic].  It's the experience of what things are like, including the existence of the self.  That you can't hit it with a hammer and therefore want to discard it from any intellectual consideration is your problem, not a problem with philosophy.

And how is a quale NOT a form of information processing? How is it any different than any other sensory input?

So, does a thermometer 'experience' the temperature? Why or why not?