3 ms·

I take your point, but many humans can't understand elements of philosophy. Can we have a "complete language interface" with them? Complete means different thi

I take your point, but many humans can't understand elements of philosophy. Can we have a "complete language interface" with them? Complete means different things in different contexts. I don't think the researcher was implying that dolphins might someday understand (or advance) philosophy.

xenophanes 16y ago
Many humans don't understand philosophy is different than being incapable of it -- it's a learned skill. Anyone without brain damage is surely capable.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Fodder for a meta-argument: Just about any undamaged human is capable of understanding some kind of philosophy, but I suspect that not even 1/2 of all humans are capable of understanding many particular philosophies. Questions: What are the problems with the above? Is it precisely worded? How many of those observations also apply to the parent-post assertion?
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Here's a more substantive statement: Only a quite limited amount is known about how knowledge is created at a hardware level. At a higher level (epistemology -- my specialty), there only exists one viable theory of how knowledge is created: by conjecture/guessing and refutation/criticism. This trial-and-error is an evolutionary process (literally, not metaphorically). This process of knowledge creation is universal in character. Something either can do it, or can't. It does not conveniently allow for any limits. Your assertion about limited and varied capacity for learning is clear, but to be compelling it would need some philosophical backing, in particular it'd need a theory of how knowledge is created that it's compatible with. I think the issue your theory attempts to address is that a lot of people are dumb. If they have universal capacity, why don't they use it? However, this issue can be answered in other ways, e.g. by discussion of creativity-supressing memes.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      e.g. by discussion of creativity-supressing memes. Which is exactly what I wanted to talk about when I read "is capable" in your previous post.
      - xenophanes 16y ago
        Well, all memes are possible to change. They're just ideas. Software. The difficulty level is an open question, but the bare capability isn't controversial. So when people talk about impassable limits, I take them to be referring to supposed genetic limits -- genes are commonly supposed to be adept at putting strong limits on people. Here is something relevant I wrote, about changing emotions (raw emotions aren't memes, but ways of interpreting and reacting to them are memes. emotions can also be triggered by ideas or memes.): http://fallibleideas.com/emotions http://fallibleideas.com/emotions The basic, overall problem is that parents and educators are extremely coercive and destroy the ability of (most) children to think for themselves (to a good approximation -- again, it's possible to recover). If you'd like to discuss that more, I'd urge you to come post your thoughts or questions on this list and I will reply (HN is not a suitable forum for longer discussions): http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously

xenophanes 16y ago

Many humans don't understand philosophy is different than being incapable of it -- it's a learned skill. Anyone without brain damage is surely capable.

stcredzero 16y ago
Fodder for a meta-argument: Just about any undamaged human is capable of understanding some kind of philosophy, but I suspect that not even 1/2 of all humans are capable of understanding many particular philosophies. Questions: What are the problems with the above? Is it precisely worded? How many of those observations also apply to the parent-post assertion?
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Here's a more substantive statement: Only a quite limited amount is known about how knowledge is created at a hardware level. At a higher level (epistemology -- my specialty), there only exists one viable theory of how knowledge is created: by conjecture/guessing and refutation/criticism. This trial-and-error is an evolutionary process (literally, not metaphorically). This process of knowledge creation is universal in character. Something either can do it, or can't. It does not conveniently allow for any limits. Your assertion about limited and varied capacity for learning is clear, but to be compelling it would need some philosophical backing, in particular it'd need a theory of how knowledge is created that it's compatible with. I think the issue your theory attempts to address is that a lot of people are dumb. If they have universal capacity, why don't they use it? However, this issue can be answered in other ways, e.g. by discussion of creativity-supressing memes.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    e.g. by discussion of creativity-supressing memes. Which is exactly what I wanted to talk about when I read "is capable" in your previous post.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Well, all memes are possible to change. They're just ideas. Software. The difficulty level is an open question, but the bare capability isn't controversial. So when people talk about impassable limits, I take them to be referring to supposed genetic limits -- genes are commonly supposed to be adept at putting strong limits on people. Here is something relevant I wrote, about changing emotions (raw emotions aren't memes, but ways of interpreting and reacting to them are memes. emotions can also be triggered by ideas or memes.): http://fallibleideas.com/emotions http://fallibleideas.com/emotions The basic, overall problem is that parents and educators are extremely coercive and destroy the ability of (most) children to think for themselves (to a good approximation -- again, it's possible to recover). If you'd like to discuss that more, I'd urge you to come post your thoughts or questions on this list and I will reply (HN is not a suitable forum for longer discussions): http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously