What's the point of philosophy any more?

[bennyboy]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you know that you do? 

That's the trouble with the crutch of a conceptual black hole..it swallows everything. If you can answer the question of whether or not you experience, and how you know it..then you can answer the question of whether or not others experience..and how you know it...and you can answer the question of whether or not a thermometer experiences..and how you know it.

It is, after all, a singular question. No different than asking whether or not it's raining in three different cities. You may live in one, be familiar with the other, and never have visited the third, but was that the question? Your knowledge of self is no less subjective than your knowledge of others, or your knowledge of thermometers. It's a meaningless subjectivity, imo..but if you insist on it being a problem in any city it's just as much a problem in your own. Just as your pragmatic assumptions are a problem if Matthildas are. You couldn't even establish that -you- aren't a thermometer..in the manner you've tried to argue the subject with others.

Is that a problem?

[I_am_not_mafia]

All of which relates to the point I made:

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?

For people to agree there needs to be an objective means by which they can agree. Science provides this. Pure philosophy does not. This is why science makes progress and philosophy by itself does not.

---

 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.

Philosophy is sold as a way to increase our collective knowledge and understanding, not as the equivalent of a crossword puzzle. I am discussing philosophy in terms of the former.

[Edwardo Piet]

What then is the field of philosophy? You just study knowledge?

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.

---

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

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.

[polymath257]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

The problem is that metaphysics doesn't actually allow any real knowledge.

Metaphysics isn't about knowledge. Epistemology is about knowledge. It doesn't try to be about knowledge. It's about starting with sensible premises that make sense of other fields.... epistemology is the field about knowledge.

We don't KNOW that physicalism or naturalism are correct metaphysical positions, we don't have to waste our time on the epistemology of that, but those positions make sense of the empirical findings science have found better than labels like non-physicalism or supernaturalism would. It would be metaphysically confused and confusing to describe the natural world as non-physical or supernatural when it's clearly physical and natural.

Metaphysical positions aren't about knowing stuff, they're about using positions that make sense and aren't confused messes.

When Lawrence Krauss talks about a universe from nothing, this 'nothing' that he speaks of makes sense scientifically, but that's because what he's talking about ISN'T actually nothing... and that's why he's metaphysically confused.

I'm less interested in knowledge and science and empricism than I am metaphysics and logic and ethics.... because I'm not a very practical person and I'd rather think about stuff than do stuff. Even when it comes to ethics, I find practical ethics dull.

To each their own, but I have a developmental disorder so it's no surprise that I'm not interested in practical issues when I struggle with them so much. But at least I *do* understand the impractical stuff, at least I *do* understand that calling something "nothing" makes no sense, and I can understand why both philosophers and more philosophical physicists criticized Lawrence for his confusion.

"What is existence?"

Isn't the same as "How can we know what existence is?"

The latter question is epistemological, the former is about definitions. But definitions aren't meaningless... it helps to say things that make sense. An example of another metaphysical confusion is positions of pantheism that literally believe in nothing more than a universe but they call that universe "God". That is metaphysically confused and confusing, especially when they then equivocate and make logical fallacies without realizing they're doing it because of that confusion. Just as Lawrence says things like "But it really *is* nothing", no it isn't and it cannot be. There isn't any thing that can *be* nothing lawrence. That's like talking about a 5 sided square that really is 5 sided when there are no 5 sided squares.

It's not helpful to use supernaturalistic labels to describe the natural world, and it's not helpful to call something "nothing". Confusing people doesn't help.

Another reason why I find epistemology less interesting than metaphysics is because I don't think we can know which is the right way to know. We just have to pick the position that is most useful to is. There becomes the problem of metaepistemology. It's not about knowing what is the right definition, it's about making a decision, about choosing the position that makes the most sense and THEN going from there to know stuff. We have to start with definitions FIRST. Epistemology comes AFTERWARDS.

To have a discussion with someone about epistemology or science, we first have to speak the same language and actually say things that make sense to each other. If someone is talking in their own private language that no one else understands, it's going to be very hard for them to do any science. Especially if they're so confused that they don't even understand or can't even make sense of their own private language! Then they'll struggle to make sense of even private discoveries. There's a reason science came out of the deep thinking of philosophy.

[polymath257]

The problem is that metaphysics doesn't actually allow any real knowledge.

Metaphysics isn't about knowledge. Epistemology is about knowledge. It doesn't try to be about knowledge. It's about starting with sensible premises that make sense of other fields.... epistemology is the field about knowledge.

We don't KNOW that physicalism or naturalism are correct metaphysical positions,  we don't have to waste our time on the epistemology of that, but those positions make sense of the empirical findings science have found better than labels like non-physicalism or supernaturalism would. It would be metaphysically confused and confusing to describe the natural world as non-physical or supernatural when it's clearly physical and natural.

Metaphysical positions aren't about knowing stuff, they're about using positions that make sense and aren't confused messes.

When Lawrence Krauss talks about a universe from nothing, this 'nothing' that he speaks of makes sense scientifically, but that's because what he's talking about  ISN'T actually nothing... and that's why he's metaphysically confused.

I'm less interested in knowledge and science and empricism than I am metaphysics and logic and ethics.... because I'm not a very practical person and I'd rather think about stuff than do stuff. Even when it comes to ethics, I find practical ethics dull.

To each their own, but I have a developmental disorder so it's no surprise that I'm not interested in practical issues when I struggle with them so much. But at least I *do* understand the impractical stuff, at least I *do* understand that calling something "nothing" makes no sense, and I can understand why both philosophers and more philosophical physicists criticized Lawrence for his confusion.

"What is existence?"

Isn't the same as "How can we know what existence is?"

The latter question is epistemological, the former is about definitions. But definitions aren't meaningless... it helps to say things that make sense. An example of another metaphysical confusion is positions of pantheism that literally believe in nothing more than a universe but they call that universe "God". That is metaphysically confused and confusing, especially when they then equivocate and make logical fallacies without realizing they're doing it because of that confusion. Just as Lawrence says things like "But it really *is* nothing", no it isn't and it cannot be. There isn't any thing that can *be* nothing lawrence. That's like talking about a 5 sided square that really is 5 sided when there are no 5 sided squares.

It's not helpful to use supernaturalistic labels to describe the natural world, and it's not helpful to call something "nothing". Confusing people doesn't help.

Another reason why I find epistemology less interesting than metaphysics is because I don't think we can know which is the right way to know. We just have to pick the position that is most useful to is. There becomes the problem of metaepistemology. It's not about knowing what is the right definition, it's about making a decision, about choosing the position that makes the most sense and THEN going from there to know stuff. We have to start with definitions FIRST. Epistemology comes AFTERWARDS.

To have a discussion with someone about epistemology or science, we first have to speak the same language and actually say things that make sense to each other. If someone is talking in their own private language that no one else understands, it's going to be very hard for them to do any science.  Especially if they're so confused that they don't even understand or can't even make sense of their own private language! Then they'll struggle to make sense of even private discoveries. There's a reason science came out of the deep thinking of philosophy.

And I think I basically agree with you. Philosophy is strongest when it investigates the various possible definitions, comparing them to see which is most useful. Sometimes even finding the right definitions is hard work (such happens all the time in mathematics).

The problem I can see is that many people become dogmatic about their metaphysics. So, for example, they may take an Aristotelian definition of 'substance' and not update it to reflect what we have discovered over the last 200 years. They may take a definition of 'vacuum' that identifies it with 'nothing', which may have been appropriate 800 years ago, but is not today. They may take the idea of 'potential existence' and use it for some pretty horrid arguments, while ignoring the difficulties with that idea that have been found over the past 2000 years. Or, they may reject the idea of an 'actual infinity' because they don't fully understand the implications of the Cantorian revolution.

So, maybe the way philosophy stays relevant is to continually look at definitions in the light of new discoveries, modifying them as appropriate given the new *knowledge* we have.

I will disagree with the goal of say, metaphysics, as it is done by most philosophers. The goal is to get *knowledge* about the basic aspects of existence and how to classify them. Epistemology then considers *how* we can know things. And that is a different sort of 'knowledge'.

[Edwardo Piet]

OK, so *why* do you no think a thermometer is likely to have a conscious experience?

I don't think a thenometer has conscious experience for the same reason that you don't believe humans have souls. There's no reason to believe it.

The absurd conclusion that thenometers must have conscious experience on some level is just one example of the nonsensical conclusions that can be reached from the absurd position that consciousness is merely "information processing" when there's literally no reason to believe that it's merely information processing. Certainly information processing tends to be involved but there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's necessary or that consciousness doesn't precede it (or that it doesn't precede conscious experience in some cases but not in others).

Galen Strawson debunks Dennett's silly position on consciousness, while also praising the parts he gets right PERFECTLY in THIS review of Dennett's book "Consiousness Explained":

Here is the review: http://www.academia.edu/411597/The_self_..._Explained

To quote just one small part from it:

[...]Dennett suggests that we can give an evolutionary explanation of why conscious experience exists: it exists because it has survival value. It is, however, a notorious fact that it is not yet possible to give a direct evolutionary explanation of the existence of conscious experience. This may seem very implausible. It may seem obvious that vision, say, has survival value. But a creature could enjoy all the benefits of vision without having any actual, conscious visual experience. It could have light-sensitive organs that enabled it to register information about its environment without having any visual experience (machines that do this can be easily constructed). The same can be said about pain. Experience of pain seems obviously useful because it motivates one to avoid sources of damage. But the tendency to avoid sources of damage could evolve without involving pain. Damage-recognition mechanisms could trigger damage-source-avoidance behaviour without there having to be any actual feeling of pain, or any other sort of experience. Perhaps some actual organisms on earth are like this.

The rest of the article is no less brilliant.

[polymath257]

OK, so *why* do you no think a thermometer is likely to have a conscious experience?

I don't think a thenometer has conscious experience for the same reason that you don't believe humans have souls. There's no reason to believe it.

The absurd conclusion that thenometers must have conscious experience on some level is just one example of the nonsensical conclusions that can be reached from the absurd position that consciousness is merely "information processing" when there's literally no reason to believe that it's merely information processing. Certainly information processing tends to be involved but there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's necessary or that consciousness doesn't precede it (or that it doesn't precede conscious experience in some cases but not in others).

I didn't say that thermometers *must* have consciousness. I asked why you think that they don't. And then, why do you think other people do. As far as I can see, it is because of some sorts of *observation* of *objective* patterns of behavior that you make those distinctions.

Galen Strawson debunks Dennett's silly position on consciousness, while also praising the parts he gets right PERFECTLY in THIS review of Dennett's book "Consiousness Explained":

Here is the review: http://www.academia.edu/411597/The_self_..._Explained

To quote just one small part from it:

[...]Dennett suggests that we can give an evolutionary explanation of why conscious experience exists: it exists because it has survival value. It is, however, a notorious fact that it is not yet possible to give a direct evolutionary explanation of the existence of conscious experience. This may seem very implausible. It may seem obvious that vision, say, has survival value. But a creature could enjoy all the benefits of vision without having any actual, conscious visual experience. It could have light-sensitive organs that enabled it to register information about its environment without having any visual experience (machines that do this can be easily constructed). The same can be said about pain. Experience of pain seems obviously useful because it motivates one to avoid sources of damage. But the tendency to avoid sources of damage could evolve without involving pain. Damage-recognition mechanisms could trigger damage-source-avoidance behaviour without there having to be any actual feeling of  pain, or any other sort of experience. Perhaps some actual organisms on earth are like this.

The rest of the article is no less brilliant.

I will give it a read. But I am already inclined to disagree. I think that consciousness is an *aspect* of the information processing. Reacting to potentially damaging aspects of the environment requires increasingly higher levels of processing and, I think, consciousness arises out of exactly this type of information processing. It 'feels like' something *because* we are processing the information in a way that we can react to it.

[Whateverist]

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

He was being a sarcastic dick.

Nah, it was just a play on words. You know, philosophy = "love of wisdom".

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.

Maybe the thing to say here is that there is a reason there is a branch of philosophy dealing with science, but no field of science focused on philosophy.

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.

While I agree that Krauss was an asshole with his everything from nothing shtick, I don't think of philosophy as something lofty. I prefer plain talk. Some topics just are complicated but most ideas are capable of being stated simply. And I don't put well known philosophers on a pedestal. For the most part the shelves which fill a philosophy library are only interesting historically. It can be interesting to see what ideas have engaged people over the centuries. Few are directly useful to any current issue.