4 ms·

This single quote from Wittgenstein might just be the dumbest statement ever made. How would we ever make progress if we did not discuss what we don't understan

This single quote from Wittgenstein might just be the dumbest statement ever made. How would we ever make progress if we did not discuss what we don't understand, and critique and debate new creative ideas?

vouwfietsman 4y ago
By not taking the quote literally, but trying to understand it in its context. The quote is a judgement about what can be logically achieved through discourse, and what cannot (and should not). He draws this boundary to separate the things we can reason about and the things that fall beyond reason and so cannot be reasoned about at all. If you cannot reason about something, you should not bring it up in (philosophical) discourse. He does this to settle philosophical debates around, for instance, mystical subjects that were fought over to exist or not exist. The conclusion for him is: we do not have the logical tools and concepts to reason about the problem, so we should stop wasting time talking about it. It's not about lack of knowledge or intelligence, its about acknowledging the limits of reason and discourse, and forgoing any conclusions made beyond those limits. It's a pursuit of truth. At least, this is how I understand it, I'm not a philosopher.
- tdehnel 4y ago
  It’s not controversial to say we have to stick to reason and logic in the pursuit of truth. But there is nothing about understanding the difference between human and machine intelligence that is forbidden by any reason or logic that I am aware of. Certainly there is a lot we don’t know about that topic. But unless that knowledge is specifically blocked by logic or the laws of physics, it is knowable. The only thing missing is the knowledge required to understand it. The only source of knowledge is conjecture and criticism, and discussion with others is a great tool for that process. The more the better. So unless you believe we know all there is to know about a topic right now, there is always the possibility that some new knowledge could help us get closer to the objective truth about it. And it’s guaranteed that new knowledge will come from creative new ideas and criticism of existing ideas. Saying something is unknowable is akin to believing in a mysterious god creator, or fairies. But more importantly, it is a way to stop or limit the progress of our understanding of the universe. It’s like when parents say “because I said so”. It shuts down discourse and understanding and leads to closed societies.
  - vouwfietsman 4y ago
    You're entirely misunderstanding me and the quote, as they both agree and align with what you're saying completely. Again, the quote is not about avoiding or ignoring valid logical discourse, criticism, hypotheses, or any other logically coherent verbalization. The quote says that if the words are ambiguous, don't use them in logical arguments. Meaningless here does not mean hypothetical or conjectural or wrong, but simply ill-defined. This interpretation leaves plenty of room for everything you have described and are afraid would be criticized by the quote. So, to get back to why I brought it up: creativity is an ill-defined concept in the context of logical reasoning, and so should not be used in logical reasoning as if it was an attribute that we can empirically or theoretically judge any entity to be in possession of. This is why all replies to the above comment get lost in semantics: what is creativity? This is ill-defined, and hence based on your personal preference you may arrive freely at any conclusion you wish. Hence using the word "creativity" during a logical argument or truthful statement is guaranteed to produce conflict when multiple interpreters are present. Multiple logical interpreters can never be in conflict about purely logical reasoning, this is why we can have math. Again, this is NOT saying that anything is unknowable, it is simply saying that whatever creativity is, or is composed of, is not clearly defined. This means it cannot be knowable or unknowable until it is clearly defined, and specifically only if done so in a rigorous enough definition to use it during reasoning. To get back to your last point: doing what I described above is specifically to further the progress of our understanding of the universe, and specifically to attain new knowledge and understanding, because it cuts down on the discourse that does not contribute to that goal. It's the difference between arguing about whether machines have creativity and building DALL-E.

vouwfietsman 4y ago

By not taking the quote literally, but trying to understand it in its context. The quote is a judgement about what can be logically achieved through discourse, and what cannot (and should not). He draws this boundary to separate the things we can reason about and the things that fall beyond reason and so cannot be reasoned about at all. If you cannot reason about something, you should not bring it up in (philosophical) discourse. He does this to settle philosophical debates around, for instance, mystical subjects that were fought over to exist or not exist. The conclusion for him is: we do not have the logical tools and concepts to reason about the problem, so we should stop wasting time talking about it. It's not about lack of knowledge or intelligence, its about acknowledging the limits of reason and discourse, and forgoing any conclusions made beyond those limits. It's a pursuit of truth. At least, this is how I understand it, I'm not a philosopher.

tdehnel 4y ago
It’s not controversial to say we have to stick to reason and logic in the pursuit of truth. But there is nothing about understanding the difference between human and machine intelligence that is forbidden by any reason or logic that I am aware of. Certainly there is a lot we don’t know about that topic. But unless that knowledge is specifically blocked by logic or the laws of physics, it is knowable. The only thing missing is the knowledge required to understand it. The only source of knowledge is conjecture and criticism, and discussion with others is a great tool for that process. The more the better. So unless you believe we know all there is to know about a topic right now, there is always the possibility that some new knowledge could help us get closer to the objective truth about it. And it’s guaranteed that new knowledge will come from creative new ideas and criticism of existing ideas. Saying something is unknowable is akin to believing in a mysterious god creator, or fairies. But more importantly, it is a way to stop or limit the progress of our understanding of the universe. It’s like when parents say “because I said so”. It shuts down discourse and understanding and leads to closed societies.
- vouwfietsman 4y ago
  You're entirely misunderstanding me and the quote, as they both agree and align with what you're saying completely. Again, the quote is not about avoiding or ignoring valid logical discourse, criticism, hypotheses, or any other logically coherent verbalization. The quote says that if the words are ambiguous, don't use them in logical arguments. Meaningless here does not mean hypothetical or conjectural or wrong, but simply ill-defined. This interpretation leaves plenty of room for everything you have described and are afraid would be criticized by the quote. So, to get back to why I brought it up: creativity is an ill-defined concept in the context of logical reasoning, and so should not be used in logical reasoning as if it was an attribute that we can empirically or theoretically judge any entity to be in possession of. This is why all replies to the above comment get lost in semantics: what is creativity? This is ill-defined, and hence based on your personal preference you may arrive freely at any conclusion you wish. Hence using the word "creativity" during a logical argument or truthful statement is guaranteed to produce conflict when multiple interpreters are present. Multiple logical interpreters can never be in conflict about purely logical reasoning, this is why we can have math. Again, this is NOT saying that anything is unknowable, it is simply saying that whatever creativity is, or is composed of, is not clearly defined. This means it cannot be knowable or unknowable until it is clearly defined, and specifically only if done so in a rigorous enough definition to use it during reasoning. To get back to your last point: doing what I described above is specifically to further the progress of our understanding of the universe, and specifically to attain new knowledge and understanding, because it cuts down on the discourse that does not contribute to that goal. It's the difference between arguing about whether machines have creativity and building DALL-E.