4 ms·
Yes, very well put. I really enjoyed his technical answers, but when he dives into the philosophy I was disappointed to see the same very naive and narcissistic
by wfo 10y ago
Yes, very well put. I really enjoyed his technical answers, but when he dives into the philosophy I was disappointed to see the same very naive and narcissistic attitudes so many scientists have (that are even alluded to at the beginning of the article): you don't need to try to understand philosophy, just use your superior STEM brain and technical intuitions and if you think about it for a few minutes, with a healthy splash of "assuming my thesis, it is obvious my thesis is correct" , the problem is trivial -- why have people been thinking about it for centuries?
- foldr 10y agoAgree completely. I don't think you deserve to be downvoted for saying that. Everything Aaronson's saying on this topic has been exhaustively discussed in the philosophical literature.
- wfo 10y agoI don't think I deserve it either but I am not surprised or particularly offended. Pop scientists like Dawkins and NDT are rightly mocked when they say things like this because we can safely feel superior to them, but a tech golden boy like Aaronson can do the exact same thing and since he knows about quantum and does computer science it doesn't matter what he says or how far out of his depth he ventures any comment about him which doesn't border on hero-worship is verboten. Downvotes or no it's worth saying. Defending any social science or humanity at all is hard work on a forum like this, but I think it's important.
- Al-Khwarizmi 10y agoHe was asked about his opinion on free will and he gave it. I don't see where he is disdaining philosophy or saying his explanation is superior to anything.