4 ms·

Some of this is pretty interesting, and some of it also feels like trying to read about the Time Cube all over again. I think something that would help Wolfram

Some of this is pretty interesting, and some of it also feels like trying to read about the Time Cube all over again. I think something that would help Wolfram is actually engaging with some of the long running topics in philosophy and, in particular, the philosophy of science, which have been looking at the concepts of "technology", "intelligence" (alien and human, in so far as that distinction can be theorized), and "understanding" for a long time, like since Xenophon and the ancient debate over episteme and techne. Something like Heidegger's historical/philosophical essay "The Question Concerning Technology" is an obvious example from the modern era (and one of the most readable Heidegger essays). By not interacting with the ongoing and historical discussion, posts like these come across as private rants that have no grounding in public conversation and shared concepts. Concepts are slammed together by private intuitive leaps. Still pretty neat how it kind of comes all together though. Wolfram clearly loves this angle he has taken.

swatcoder 4y ago
This is the norm for outsider art/thought and is what allows it to sometimes prove revolutionary. His dedicated effort basically creates this vast vein of intellectual ore for others to mine and refine later. It might never prove useful, or it might be that somebody stumbles across it with the right perspective at the right time and is able to make big mainstream innovations with it. It’s a long view process and needn’t be rushed. It’s not like Wolfram’s at risk of giving up his efforts for being an outsider this way.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  > This is the norm for outsider art/thought and is what allows it to sometimes prove revolutionary. The idea that outsider artists and thinker weren't often extremely aware of ongoing and historical conversations around what they're talking about, especially the revolutionary ones, is just not true. Almost all avant-garde or very far on the edge thinkers understand the canons of their trades and practices deeply. That's how they're able to place their thinking and work in context as radical and outsider --- they're "breaking the rules" by knowing them. > It’s a long view process and needn’t be rushed. It’s not like Wolfram’s at risk of giving up his efforts for being an outsider this way. That's precisely why I think he should interact with the work and history that's already been done in the areas he's working in. If there's no rush, why write these blog posts in the style of breathless private rants instead of finely honed and elegant arguments?
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    Avant garde work and outsider work aren’t the same thing, although those identifying with avant garde are often the ones that find and share the value in outsider work.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I think the deal is that Wolfram thinks he doesn't need the canon. He thinks he's so smart that he doesn't need to read it, and that it would be a waste of his time. (Or so I suspect.)
    - analog31 4y ago
      Perhaps not necessarily so much that he's so smart, but that he will soon have the technology at his disposal to overcome needing the canon. There has actually been a widespread belief, for decades, that computers (loosely defined) will soon eliminate the need for experts. His belief puts him in good company with many laypeople, middle managers, etc.
  - karmakaze 4y ago
    > they're "breaking the rules" by knowing them. Ramanujan
  - comboy 4y ago
    > edge thinkers understand the canons of their trades and practices deeply Yes but not from others and not from books. If you look at correspondence between some brilliant math and physics minds they are often discovering that they arrived at the same things independently. I'm not advocating reinventing the wheel, but life is too short to learn what all other smart people had to say on given topic. You end up being expert on what was written by whom instead of learning the thing. I'm sure you've met those people. Subtleties of new discoveries are ignored because "well obviously, John wrote about that in 1928". Plus you get stuck in local minima along with the rest, because for even smal improvement it may be necessary to use completely different framework, a way of looking at the thing. And just knowing vocabulary that others have used you are already stuck within their framework. We think in patterns, we name them. If you were thought a name for some range of colors between red and orange, you would think of it as something clearly distinct than both red and orange, just as you are unlikely to accept that brown is just dark orange.
joe_the_user 4y ago
Well, the thing about the long-term philosophical dialogue generally is that it moves extremely slowly - and the discussion of technology isn't an exception. The concepts are well-grounded and thoroughly debated but they resist change. One could argue that, like the Catholic Church, philosophers are still on the fence about Galileo and this Ribbonfarm article [1] gives an interesting discussion how the rise of instrumental sensing was taken by philosophy (not well). This situation that a lot of thinkers of science and technology wind-up doing what you describe Wolfram as doing ("Concepts are slammed together by private intuitive leaps") - some better, some worse. The work of Alfred Korzybski or the framework of original "cybernetics" are some of my favorites. But none of these has been rolled-back into the mainstream of philosophy and so science and technology continue their way and philosophy continues its way. Wolfram is only the latest example of this. [1] https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nathias 4y ago
So your issue is he's doing philosophy and not doing academic philosophy? Its very refreshing having an author that is actually doing philosophy and not just talking about it or making comparative essays.
plutonorm 4y ago
What he says makes perfect sense to me, a person who thinks about these sorts of things in their spare time. They are simple and logical consequences of what we see. If academic philosophy isn't following it then perhaps it needs to get it's act together.

swatcoder 4y ago

This is the norm for outsider art/thought and is what allows it to sometimes prove revolutionary. His dedicated effort basically creates this vast vein of intellectual ore for others to mine and refine later. It might never prove useful, or it might be that somebody stumbles across it with the right perspective at the right time and is able to make big mainstream innovations with it. It’s a long view process and needn’t be rushed. It’s not like Wolfram’s at risk of giving up his efforts for being an outsider this way.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
> This is the norm for outsider art/thought and is what allows it to sometimes prove revolutionary. The idea that outsider artists and thinker weren't often extremely aware of ongoing and historical conversations around what they're talking about, especially the revolutionary ones, is just not true. Almost all avant-garde or very far on the edge thinkers understand the canons of their trades and practices deeply. That's how they're able to place their thinking and work in context as radical and outsider --- they're "breaking the rules" by knowing them. > It’s a long view process and needn’t be rushed. It’s not like Wolfram’s at risk of giving up his efforts for being an outsider this way. That's precisely why I think he should interact with the work and history that's already been done in the areas he's working in. If there's no rush, why write these blog posts in the style of breathless private rants instead of finely honed and elegant arguments?
- swatcoder 4y ago
  Avant garde work and outsider work aren’t the same thing, although those identifying with avant garde are often the ones that find and share the value in outsider work.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I think the deal is that Wolfram thinks he doesn't need the canon. He thinks he's so smart that he doesn't need to read it, and that it would be a waste of his time. (Or so I suspect.)
  - analog31 4y ago
    Perhaps not necessarily so much that he's so smart, but that he will soon have the technology at his disposal to overcome needing the canon. There has actually been a widespread belief, for decades, that computers (loosely defined) will soon eliminate the need for experts. His belief puts him in good company with many laypeople, middle managers, etc.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  > they're "breaking the rules" by knowing them. Ramanujan
- comboy 4y ago
  > edge thinkers understand the canons of their trades and practices deeply Yes but not from others and not from books. If you look at correspondence between some brilliant math and physics minds they are often discovering that they arrived at the same things independently. I'm not advocating reinventing the wheel, but life is too short to learn what all other smart people had to say on given topic. You end up being expert on what was written by whom instead of learning the thing. I'm sure you've met those people. Subtleties of new discoveries are ignored because "well obviously, John wrote about that in 1928". Plus you get stuck in local minima along with the rest, because for even smal improvement it may be necessary to use completely different framework, a way of looking at the thing. And just knowing vocabulary that others have used you are already stuck within their framework. We think in patterns, we name them. If you were thought a name for some range of colors between red and orange, you would think of it as something clearly distinct than both red and orange, just as you are unlikely to accept that brown is just dark orange.

joe_the_user 4y ago

Well, the thing about the long-term philosophical dialogue generally is that it moves extremely slowly - and the discussion of technology isn't an exception. The concepts are well-grounded and thoroughly debated but they resist change. One could argue that, like the Catholic Church, philosophers are still on the fence about Galileo and this Ribbonfarm article [1] gives an interesting discussion how the rise of instrumental sensing was taken by philosophy (not well). This situation that a lot of thinkers of science and technology wind-up doing what you describe Wolfram as doing ("Concepts are slammed together by private intuitive leaps") - some better, some worse. The work of Alfred Korzybski or the framework of original "cybernetics" are some of my favorites. But none of these has been rolled-back into the mainstream of philosophy and so science and technology continue their way and philosophy continues its way. Wolfram is only the latest example of this. [1] https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nathias 4y ago

So your issue is he's doing philosophy and not doing academic philosophy? Its very refreshing having an author that is actually doing philosophy and not just talking about it or making comparative essays.

plutonorm 4y ago

What he says makes perfect sense to me, a person who thinks about these sorts of things in their spare time. They are simple and logical consequences of what we see. If academic philosophy isn't following it then perhaps it needs to get it's act together.