RE: What's the point of philosophy any more?
March 25, 2018 at 9:30 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2018 at 9:40 am by polymath257.)
(March 24, 2018 at 10:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(March 24, 2018 at 10:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: 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?
I don't believe a thermometer is likely to have an experience, but your question is a good one. How, other than by assumption, do I determine whether even other people have qualia?
There is no methodology by which I can establish objective truth through subjective experience, and subjective experience is the only mode in which I exist as a sentient being. At best, I can say that I'm a person, other people look and act a lot like me, and make the pragmatic assumption that they are similar to me in that important regard.
OK, so *why* do you no think a thermometer is likely to have a conscious experience? Is there some *objective* reason you can point to? And, if so, isn't that a way into an 'objective' description of 'subjective' experience?
But let's go deeper. Suppose that we find (and such has already been done) that whenever a certain process happens in the brain, which we can detect via EEGs and PET scans, the person whose brain it is reports a certain type of conscious experience.
Suppose this is true for all people tested and if the phenomenon does *not* occur, nobody reports that experience.
How is that *not* a way to objectively determine a subjective state? We measure the brain to see if that phenomenon is happening. If it is, we know the person is having that experience.
And the point is that we *can* determine subjective experiences, in some cases *today*, via objective correlates. You *don't* only exist as a subjective being. You also exist as a material being and those subjective experiences have objective correlates. And we can use those correlates to know what your subjective experiences are.
We can then go to AIs and see if *similar* phenomena happen. If they do, we can say the AI has that experience also and is thereby conscious.
(March 25, 2018 at 8:58 am)Hammy Wrote:(March 22, 2018 at 7:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: You have to love it, or you're doing it wrong!
Epistemology is just one subfield of philosophy.
Personally it's the category I find the least interesting.
(March 22, 2018 at 8:05 am)Whateverist Wrote: That comes awfully close to what the religious say about finding faith.
He was being a sarcastic dick.
Those people who think science is the answer to everything and have no respect for philosophy, are far more dogmatic than those who understand the limits of it. Philosophy even deals with the limits of itself, not just of science and other subjects. That's why metaphilosopy is a thing.
It really is the grandfather of profound and deep discourse. Big talk instead of small talk. You wouldn't even have politics without philosophy. Why do you think democracy and philosophy both started in ancient greece? There wouldn't even be any science without philosophy. And again, like I said, the fact that Lawrence Krauss speaks of a universe coming from "nothing" and then goes on to talk about something, and gets rightly criticized for that not just by philosophers, but by less philosophically ignorant physicists.... the fact you get people like Krauss making a complete ass of himself, is just one of many examples of why philosophy matters.
Shitting on philosophy is really like shitting on the greatest minds that ever lived. Even amongst scientists, the most intelligent scientific thoughts are the more philosophical ones. The theory behind the science takes more thought than standing in a lab coat or memorizing equations.
The problem is that metaphysics doesn't actually allow any real knowledge. It allows us to manipulate our biases. But, historically, the 'conclusions' from metaphysics have been less likely to be valid when testable than conclusions from other areas.
Now, you are correct that many of the greatest minds in history have been philosophers. But you could say the same thing about alchemy. The point is that many great thinkers in history came before the scientific revolution (and, yes, contributed to it---so did alchemy) and so dealt with questions using philosophy since that was the only tool available.
Now, however, we have the scientific method and have learned more over the last 400 years than we did over the 2000 before that. Why? Partly because of the decline of philosophy as a way of exploring truth. Other, better, tools have been found. We no longer use alchemy or astrology to know things about the universe. Both of these were crucial stages in the development of modern ideas, however. That doens't mean they are still useful.
Now, philosophy is still quite relevant in subjects without objective standards (as yet): ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc. And these are important subjects. So, because of them, philosophy remains relevant.
(March 25, 2018 at 8:58 am)Hammy Wrote:(March 22, 2018 at 7:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: You have to love it, or you're doing it wrong!
Epistemology is just one subfield of philosophy.
Personally it's the category I find the least interesting.
(March 22, 2018 at 8:05 am)Whateverist Wrote: That comes awfully close to what the religious say about finding faith.
He was being a sarcastic dick.
Those people who think science is the answer to everything and have no respect for philosophy, are far more dogmatic than those who understand the limits of it. Philosophy even deals with the limits of itself, not just of science and other subjects. That's why metaphilosopy is a thing.
It really is the grandfather of profound and deep discourse. Big talk instead of small talk. You wouldn't even have politics without philosophy. Why do you think democracy and philosophy both started in ancient greece? There wouldn't even be any science without philosophy. And again, like I said, the fact that Lawrence Krauss speaks of a universe coming from "nothing" and then goes on to talk about something, and gets rightly criticized for that not just by philosophers, but by less philosophically ignorant physicists.... the fact you get people like Krauss making a complete ass of himself, is just one of many examples of why philosophy matters.
Shitting on philosophy is really like shitting on the greatest minds that ever lived. Even amongst scientists, the most intelligent scientific thoughts are the more philosophical ones. The theory behind the science takes more thought than standing in a lab coat or memorizing equations.
The problem is that metaphysics doesn't actually allow any real knowledge. It allows us to manipulate our biases. But, historically, the 'conclusions' from metaphysics have been less likely to be valid when testable than conclusions from other areas.
Now, you are correct that many of the greatest minds in history have been philosophers. But you could say the same thing about alchemy. The point is that many great thinkers in history came before the scientific revolution (and, yes, contributed to it---so did alchemy) and so dealt with questions using philosophy since that was the only tool available.
Now, however, we have the scientific method and have learned more over the last 400 years than we did over the 2000 before that. Why? Partly because of the decline of philosophy as a way of exploring truth. Other, better, tools have been found. We no longer use alchemy or astrology to know things about the universe. Both of these were crucial stages in the development of modern ideas, however. That doens't mean they are still useful.
Now, philosophy is still quite relevant in subjects without objective standards (as yet): ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc. And these are important subjects. So, because of them, philosophy remains relevant.
