4 ms·
This video isn't trying anything new. These are ideas that we've seen already, just presented in a way that is palatable to engineers. Reason itself can unders
by chobeat 8y ago
This video isn't trying anything new. These are ideas that we've seen already, just presented in a way that is palatable to engineers.
Reason itself can understand its limits. That's a good thing, we are lucky and we got to that poitn.
> It's rather the opposite here; some are trying to forbid reason to stray outside the box they believe it belongs in.
Nobody is forbidding anything, as long as you don't make it dangerous. Excesses of reason led to great crimes in the last centuries but this is not the case.
> The possibility that reason might explain mental processes appears to be so threatening that many people are attacking this video for daring to try.
Reason can explain mental processes for sure: it's called neuroscience and it's a thriving field. But consciousness or intelligence are not only about mental processes. I mean, you can believe so but then we say your opinions are naive, because there's plenty of evidence that mechanicism is not enough to explain human experience. We are not attacking this video, we are criticizing it for making the same mistakes of so many reductionists before him. If the attacks seem vague is because probably you're missing the whole discourse going on in the last 20 years in the Philosophy of Mind and related fields.
Also reason is not sacred, get over it.
- leereeves 8y agoIf there are compelling arguments from "the whole discourse going on in the last 20 years in the Philosophy of Mind and related fields" then please introduce those arguments. "You can believe [something] but then we say your opinions are naive" is not actually an argument, nor is it productive discussion.
- chobeat 8y agoHere you go: https://books.google.it/books?id=r0Bf3lLys6AC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.it/books?id=r0Bf3lLys6AC&printsec=front... https://books.google.it/books?id=OVGna4ZEpWwC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.it/books?id=OVGna4ZEpWwC&printsec=front... These are just a couple of modern books with an anti-reductionist approach.
- leereeves 8y agoSo no particular argument stands out as relevant and compelling? I can tell you I'll never read those books. Philosophy is a field that's never contributed anything useful and never actually reached a conclusion on anything.
- chobeat 8y agocan you acknowledge that "maybe" it's just that you cannot understand the whole thing? You know, many scientists engaged in philosophy (as if science is not a branch of philosophy, lol), as well as many artists, politicians, economists and most of the most brilliant minds every produced by the humankind. Why do you think they are wrong in that endeavour and you're right?
- leereeves 8y agoI have no trouble understanding philosophy, it's not at all deep or challenging compared to advanced mathematics or physics. It's just unproductive. Ask five philosophers for an answer and you'll get ten opinions.
- chobeat 8y agowhat? Philosophy is not about giving answers. It's about many things, but it stopped being about giving answers a long time ago. It's about creating realities, it's about destructuring other people's answers. It's about asking questions. It's about understanding why all the answers are partial. But philosophy is a never ending endeavour, like science. They don't deal in absolutes, they deal in "this is good enough for now but that's not the truth".
- leereeves 8y agoPrecisely what I'm saying. Philosophy isn't even about looking for answers. You're right that science and philosophy were once united, but philosophy abandoned evidence-based inquiry long ago and left the search for real answers to science. Perhaps one day we'll really understand intelligence and consciousness. Perhaps not. But if we do, I'm confident the answers will come from neuroscience, psychology, and/or AI, rather than philosophy.