6 ms·

> But hopefully we have paved the way for future models and empirical studies on the nature of self, a problem that philosophers have made essentially no headwa

> But hopefully we have paved the way for future models and empirical studies on the nature of self, a problem that philosophers have made essentially no headway in solving. This final statement not only seems snide but also dumb to the difference between science and philosophy. (I'm not an expert on that difference but I can see that there is one. I can see that there is a clear difference in spite of the fact that each steps on the others' toes, that each side attempts to take credit for the others' insights at times, or makes snide comments at each other like this statement here.)

type0 10y ago
I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. That doesn't mean that philosophy can't have its place, it's there to ask questions but very often those questions are meaningless without the way to gain answers.
- bjd2385 10y ago
  I like this comment. Honestly it makes sense; that is not to say that philosophy doesn't have a place in science, but I would liken it to writing a website in assembly as opposed to JS, etc.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Well...Philosophy ("love of wisdom") originally encompassed all of science. In a sense, once a discipline was able to be conducted more empirically, it split off. So at any particular stage, Philosophy will be trying to answer those questions we can't answer empirically. So I find the "free-ride" a little harsh. What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers. I think it might be useful for Philosophy to be less its own specialty and more an umbrella for the whole enterprise of "love of wisdom".
  - foldr 10y ago
    >What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers. I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth. Most of the domains where we've gained a great deal of empirical knowledge are domains which people always investigated empirically, albeit less systematically and with fewer available resources (e.g. astronomy). On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science. E.g. Is it possible to make true statements about the future? How is change possible?
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      >I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth. How so? For example: http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s3.htm http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s3.htm Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers. >On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science Exactly my point. Of the problems they worked on (and they worked on everything they could think of), the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy. Sort of like the definition of AI: if we solve it, it's no longer considered AI.
      - foldr 10y ago
        >Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was that Plato and Aristotle (and other early astronomers) realized that astronomy had to be based on observation. No-one (except perhaps a few cranks that no-one remembers) has ever tried to do "armchair astronomy". >the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy. I think the distinction is really just the distinction between empirical science and metaphysics, which is a distinction that Aristotle would also have made, though perhaps in slightly different terms. For this reason, I think the image of armchair philosophy gradually yielding ground to science is wrong. Broadly speaking, philosophers have always worked on philosophical problems using philosophical methods, and scientists have always worked on scientific problems using empirical methods. There hasn't been any great shift from one to the other. What has occurred of course is a shift in prestige: society currently values empirical science much more than it values philosophy.
- foldr 10y ago
  >I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. That's a pretty bold claim to make without citing any specific examples.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    That's a pretty bold claim to make.
- hyperpallium 10y ago
  As a discipline, philosophy is largely abstract argument without content. In this sense, HN is philosophical.
  - Jimmy 10y ago
    How much philosophy do you know? Do you think you have free will? Some philosophers argue convincingly that you don't. And if there's no such thing as free will, where does that leave the notion of punishment in the criminal justice system? I think that's "content" if there ever was such a thing. Should we be socialists or capitalists? Is one system better than the other? What does it mean for an economic system to be "better" than another anyway? On the basis of philosophical arguments regarding these questions, people have been inspired to violently murder those who they see as perpetuating injustice. Surely, then, these arguments are not just "abstract" and "without content". It's very difficult to explain why science is as successful as it is, or why we should put our trust in the results of scientific inquiry. The history of science is littered with mistakes, after all; who's to say that the expert scientific consensus isn't wrong today? So when you encounter someone on the street who says "I think global warming is nonsense," what sorts of arguments will you use to try and persuade them otherwise? The problems of philosophy don't go away just because you're not looking at them.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >Should we be socialists or capitalists? Is one system better than the other? What does it mean for an economic system to be "better" than another anyway? On the basis of philosophical arguments regarding these questions, people have been inspired to violently murder those who they see as perpetuating injustice. Surely, then, these arguments are not just "abstract" and "without content". Most socialists viciously reject all association with the kind of nonmaterialist, non-scientific, ahistorical kind of philosophy you're trying to justify here. We use "metaphysics" as an insult and "liberal metaphysics" especially to sneer at our opponents for trying to draw moral justification from a kind of Platonic realm of Forms rather than from the material needs of human beings. I'm sure you have some thoughts to add in response, but my point is that socialism itself, as usually taught, is not a very good example to make your point with.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. Actually, cognitive scientists emerged after millennia of philosophic treatments of the matter (although they approach things with a different methodology of course). That said, I don't think we have many, if any, philosophers today. All the main perspectives in philosophy have been played out from the time of Pre-Socratic philosophers to the 20th century. Today we mostly have tame and bland tenured academics in Philosophy departments -- a pale shadow of philosophers of yore, and not so original to boot.
curun1r 10y ago
That last sentence is particularly ignorant in light of contemplatives reliably showing that the self we know is basically an illusion. People can be shown this reliably through meditation. To those that have glimpsed this fact his research seems particularly foolish. I call it a fact since it's akin to a magic eye picture...people have either seen what's there or they haven't, it can't really be argued. His research seems, to me, to be the neurology of a delusion, albeit an absurdly common one. What would be much more interesting, and what I believe others are studying, is the neurology of those who have managed to move past this illusion.

type0 10y ago

I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. That doesn't mean that philosophy can't have its place, it's there to ask questions but very often those questions are meaningless without the way to gain answers.

bjd2385 10y ago
I like this comment. Honestly it makes sense; that is not to say that philosophy doesn't have a place in science, but I would liken it to writing a website in assembly as opposed to JS, etc.
mpweiher 10y ago
Well...Philosophy ("love of wisdom") originally encompassed all of science. In a sense, once a discipline was able to be conducted more empirically, it split off. So at any particular stage, Philosophy will be trying to answer those questions we can't answer empirically. So I find the "free-ride" a little harsh. What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers. I think it might be useful for Philosophy to be less its own specialty and more an umbrella for the whole enterprise of "love of wisdom".
- foldr 10y ago
  >What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers. I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth. Most of the domains where we've gained a great deal of empirical knowledge are domains which people always investigated empirically, albeit less systematically and with fewer available resources (e.g. astronomy). On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science. E.g. Is it possible to make true statements about the future? How is change possible?
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    >I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth. How so? For example: http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s3.htm http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s3.htm Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers. >On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science Exactly my point. Of the problems they worked on (and they worked on everything they could think of), the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy. Sort of like the definition of AI: if we solve it, it's no longer considered AI.
    - foldr 10y ago
      >Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was that Plato and Aristotle (and other early astronomers) realized that astronomy had to be based on observation. No-one (except perhaps a few cranks that no-one remembers) has ever tried to do "armchair astronomy". >the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy. I think the distinction is really just the distinction between empirical science and metaphysics, which is a distinction that Aristotle would also have made, though perhaps in slightly different terms. For this reason, I think the image of armchair philosophy gradually yielding ground to science is wrong. Broadly speaking, philosophers have always worked on philosophical problems using philosophical methods, and scientists have always worked on scientific problems using empirical methods. There hasn't been any great shift from one to the other. What has occurred of course is a shift in prestige: society currently values empirical science much more than it values philosophy.
foldr 10y ago
>I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. That's a pretty bold claim to make without citing any specific examples.
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  That's a pretty bold claim to make.
hyperpallium 10y ago
As a discipline, philosophy is largely abstract argument without content. In this sense, HN is philosophical.
- Jimmy 10y ago
  How much philosophy do you know? Do you think you have free will? Some philosophers argue convincingly that you don't. And if there's no such thing as free will, where does that leave the notion of punishment in the criminal justice system? I think that's "content" if there ever was such a thing. Should we be socialists or capitalists? Is one system better than the other? What does it mean for an economic system to be "better" than another anyway? On the basis of philosophical arguments regarding these questions, people have been inspired to violently murder those who they see as perpetuating injustice. Surely, then, these arguments are not just "abstract" and "without content". It's very difficult to explain why science is as successful as it is, or why we should put our trust in the results of scientific inquiry. The history of science is littered with mistakes, after all; who's to say that the expert scientific consensus isn't wrong today? So when you encounter someone on the street who says "I think global warming is nonsense," what sorts of arguments will you use to try and persuade them otherwise? The problems of philosophy don't go away just because you're not looking at them.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >Should we be socialists or capitalists? Is one system better than the other? What does it mean for an economic system to be "better" than another anyway? On the basis of philosophical arguments regarding these questions, people have been inspired to violently murder those who they see as perpetuating injustice. Surely, then, these arguments are not just "abstract" and "without content". Most socialists viciously reject all association with the kind of nonmaterialist, non-scientific, ahistorical kind of philosophy you're trying to justify here. We use "metaphysics" as an insult and "liberal metaphysics" especially to sneer at our opponents for trying to draw moral justification from a kind of Platonic realm of Forms rather than from the material needs of human beings. I'm sure you have some thoughts to add in response, but my point is that socialism itself, as usually taught, is not a very good example to make your point with.
coldtea 10y ago
>I think philosophers often free-ride on the discoveries of cognitive scientists without adding anything to the discussion. Actually, cognitive scientists emerged after millennia of philosophic treatments of the matter (although they approach things with a different methodology of course). That said, I don't think we have many, if any, philosophers today. All the main perspectives in philosophy have been played out from the time of Pre-Socratic philosophers to the 20th century. Today we mostly have tame and bland tenured academics in Philosophy departments -- a pale shadow of philosophers of yore, and not so original to boot.

curun1r 10y ago

That last sentence is particularly ignorant in light of contemplatives reliably showing that the self we know is basically an illusion. People can be shown this reliably through meditation. To those that have glimpsed this fact his research seems particularly foolish. I call it a fact since it's akin to a magic eye picture...people have either seen what's there or they haven't, it can't really be argued. His research seems, to me, to be the neurology of a delusion, albeit an absurdly common one. What would be much more interesting, and what I believe others are studying, is the neurology of those who have managed to move past this illusion.