3 ms·

If at the end of the day, you've got a world to live in with problems to solve, it does not suffice to say "oh, gee... there are lots of interesting ways to loo

by Retra 9y ago

If at the end of the day, you've got a world to live in with problems to solve, it does not suffice to say "oh, gee... there are lots of interesting ways to look at the world." You have to do something more than just catalogue esoteric thought. And there's a lot of junk philosophy that poses questions and says "this is interesting", even if, for all practical purposes, it is definitely not interesting. (Like P-Zombies, the Ship of Theseus, free will, etc. It's all junk philosophy.)

mcguire 9y ago
P-zombies are a bit overblown in my opinion, too, but that arises from the AI question: what is the moral, ethical, and ultimately legal status of a general AI? Does an entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person have any rights a real person is bound to respect? Likewise, the question of free will has some downstream legal consequences. A pure practical, utilitarian answer might just be unpalatable. In the end different philosophical systems have different behavioral results-a strong believer in divinely received morality will certainly come to different conclusions from an existential absurdist. Support charities? A Nietzschian might not thank you for that. A Randian might just think you a fool. There's probably a difference between Buddhist philosophy and that of Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann, but for the life of me, I can't see what it is.
- Retra 9y ago
  >Does an entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person have any rights a real person is bound to respect? Any entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person is a person. That's what "is" means. Scientists figured this out. Programmers figured this out. Mathematicians figured this out. Philosophers? They don't want to figure things out. They want to drop names. In the end, these are mostly solved problems, and if it weren't for people continuing to worship their own ignorance -- sorry -- "the mystery", then we'd be able to move past these and find some useful philosophy to talk about, rather than spinning up 1300 year old problems again and again.

by Retra 9y ago

mcguire 9y ago

P-zombies are a bit overblown in my opinion, too, but that arises from the AI question: what is the moral, ethical, and ultimately legal status of a general AI? Does an entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person have any rights a real person is bound to respect? Likewise, the question of free will has some downstream legal consequences. A pure practical, utilitarian answer might just be unpalatable. In the end different philosophical systems have different behavioral results-a strong believer in divinely received morality will certainly come to different conclusions from an existential absurdist. Support charities? A Nietzschian might not thank you for that. A Randian might just think you a fool. There's probably a difference between Buddhist philosophy and that of Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann, but for the life of me, I can't see what it is.

Retra 9y ago
>Does an entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person have any rights a real person is bound to respect? Any entity that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a person is a person. That's what "is" means. Scientists figured this out. Programmers figured this out. Mathematicians figured this out. Philosophers? They don't want to figure things out. They want to drop names. In the end, these are mostly solved problems, and if it weren't for people continuing to worship their own ignorance -- sorry -- "the mystery", then we'd be able to move past these and find some useful philosophy to talk about, rather than spinning up 1300 year old problems again and again.