4 ms·

> These arguments aren't new. This is good argument for why tech/science/stem need to read history, or 'older' science history. Sure, but it is also important

by lisper 3y ago

> These arguments aren't new. This is good argument for why tech/science/stem need to read history, or 'older' science history. Sure, but it is also important not to lend too much credence to these arguments, because they were devised from a position of ignorance. In particular, in 1879 we didn't have neurobiology, nor the theory of computation and complexity, and we barely had evolution. OoS had been published just 20 years before, and molecular biology was many decades in the future. There is value in studying Ptolemy and Aristotle too, but mainly to understand how they got things wrong.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I agree. You can't take something from 1800's as gospel, like that was the final word and we shall not progress. Just saying, shouldn't ignore it either. It is ok to study Plato or Leibniz, and realize it is historical background, and might spur new thoughts. We don't worship Plato as if that was the end of all thought. But lets not forget it, ignore it like it didn't happen, like all ideas today are new.
maksimur 3y ago
Agree with you except that the value in studying ancient thinkers and intellectuals is also in recognising patterns and seeing how they probably recognised patterns too.
- lisper 3y ago
  Yes, I totally agree. I'm just saying that one should be skeptical about their conclusions because they didn't have access to much of the knowledge we have today. (William James in particular I have seen cited by religious people in support of religious arguments. He may have been a really smart guy, and there might be a lot to learn by studying him, but he just didn't know the things we know today -- no one did in his day -- and so it's not surprising that he got a lot of things wrong, including his answer to the titular question. We are in fact automata. Very, very sophisticated automata, but automata nonetheless.)

by lisper 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

I agree. You can't take something from 1800's as gospel, like that was the final word and we shall not progress. Just saying, shouldn't ignore it either. It is ok to study Plato or Leibniz, and realize it is historical background, and might spur new thoughts. We don't worship Plato as if that was the end of all thought. But lets not forget it, ignore it like it didn't happen, like all ideas today are new.

maksimur 3y ago

Agree with you except that the value in studying ancient thinkers and intellectuals is also in recognising patterns and seeing how they probably recognised patterns too.

lisper 3y ago
Yes, I totally agree. I'm just saying that one should be skeptical about their conclusions because they didn't have access to much of the knowledge we have today. (William James in particular I have seen cited by religious people in support of religious arguments. He may have been a really smart guy, and there might be a lot to learn by studying him, but he just didn't know the things we know today -- no one did in his day -- and so it's not surprising that he got a lot of things wrong, including his answer to the titular question. We are in fact automata. Very, very sophisticated automata, but automata nonetheless.)