3 ms·
Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. The submitted article is a good illustration why. There are two hypotheses: one is that
by chr1 3y ago
Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. The submitted article is a good illustration why.
There are two hypotheses: one is that consciousness is essentially a computation, the other that it is an unknowable stuff. Philosophers spend time talking how one or the other hypothesis "feels right" to them. Scientists try to see what results can be obtained through computation.
Now we got to the point where we have automaton talking. Still very very far from understanding how brain works, but an interesting discovery on the way to it. Meanwhile, what philosophers have to say is still as uninteresting and irrelevant as it was in 1879...
- spookybones 3y agoYou’re talking about metaphysics. Epistemology will be one of the most important issues with AI. And let’s not ignore ethics. You seem to speak as someone who hasn’t read any philosophy. Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, and plenty of other physicists would disagree with your sentiment.
- chr1 3y agoI am saying that so far progress in metaphysics came not from philosophers but from physicists, who actually do experiments or math calculations. Similarly progress in understanding AI will come from people who actually build and experiment with AI, or with brains. As for ethics, i don't see how is it relevant.
- bmitc 3y ago> Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. Do you realize that physics requires the adoption of a philosophy? Physics addresses problems that are effectively easy. Physicists have tools, such as mathematics, at their disposal and can make wildly simplifying assumptions. Philosophers are often trying to address what the questions even are and then try to develop new tools to both explore the questions and their answers. Physics is downstream of philosophy.
- chr1 3y agoUnfortunately it is not possible to find out new questions or develop new tools by just thinking about stuff. You need to also do something concrete, at which point you cease to be just a philosopher and become also a mathematician, physicist, historian, economist etc. In the example of question of consciousness, the point of view presented by William James here was obvious to people long before him. Scientific observation have shown the possibility of the alternative theory: that we are automata. We still do not have a definitive answer which one is correct, but philosophy have not contributed anything towards finding the correct answer. And the only progress we had in last 2500 years was due to science.
- bmitc 3y ago> You need to also do something concrete, at which point you cease to be just a philosopher and become also a mathematician, physicist, historian, economist etc. That's the point. And the converse is true as well.