3 ms·

The problem is fascinating in itself, but I don't see why it is classified as an unsolved problem in philosophy. From the article: "The resolution of this pro

by chm 13y ago

The problem is fascinating in itself, but I don't see why it is classified as an unsolved problem in philosophy. From the article: "The resolution of this problem is in some sense provided by the study of human subjects who gain vision after extended congenital blindness." The solution is purely empirical, not philosophical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_philosoph...

arrrg 13y ago
Philosophical problems tend to turn into empirical problems with time. That’s completely normal. At some point in time you can’t actually investigate something empirically, so it’s a philosophical problem. As soon as you can, the philosophical problem turns into an empirical one.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  I don't understand how it's a philosophical question. It's a question about the state of reality. Even before anyone tried to actually test it, it was still a question about the way things are. It's like asking what's inside a room, and calling it a philosophical question. Then you open the door and actually look and suddenly it's not?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    The Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment is definitely a philosophical problem, yes.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    Yes, that’s how it works, basically. Only that at the time you are asking the question, it has to actually be impossible to find out what’s inside the room. Philosophy is for questions that cannot be investigated empirically. And that includes those that cannot yet be investigated empirically. That’s definitely where I see the role of philosophy.
  - jleader 13y ago
    Aren't all (interesting) philosophical questions about reality, or at least some extended or modified version of reality as we know it? "What can be known?" "Do we have free will?" "Does God exist?" (hint, any question that starts "Do we..." or references questions of existence is asking about the state of reality)
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      Possibly, though questions about morality or free-will, or the nature of knowledge or whatever, are not. But what I meant was that almost any question can be considered philosophical under that definition. Until you actually test it scientifically at least. And if that's the case, then the meaning of "philosophical questions" becomes worthless. A word that can describe anything is useless. The value of a word is that it can be used to differentiate between things.
      - arrrg 13y ago
        No, that’s not all! Philosophical questions also have to be relevant. That’s a squishy condition but I would really say it’s that simple. There is nothing special about philosophical questions per se, it’s whatever humans find intensely interesting and cannot (yet or ever) be investigated empirically. (I’m pretty sure I agree with you that something like morality can, at its core, not be empirically investigated, though empirical investigation can help create clarity in arguments about morality, though I’m not sure whether that’s an absolute truth that cannot ever be changed. Free will? Nature of knowledge? Those obviously are ripe for empirical investigation. I don’t see why we should never be able to answer those questions conclusively and empirically.)
        Houshalter 13y ago
        I don't know about free will because it depends how you define it and it's not something I've ever understood, though it doesn't seem like a concept that is dependent on how the universe actually is in a physical sense. The nature of knowledge is pretty vague too, but if you mean the concept of how we can ever know things, that also doesn't depend on how the universe physically is. In another universe with different laws of physics, it would still apply. The same is true of mathematics, for example.
steveklabnik 13y ago
Empiricism is a philosophical position. (Furthermore, before finding a way to test this empirically, it was solely a thought experiment, and therefore, even more directly in the realm of philosophy.)
javert 13y ago
Because one of the fundamental questions in philosophy has always been whether knowledge comes from empirical sense experience or whether it comes from somewhere else. Having a definitive answer to this question could be thought to potentially shed light on that. Plato would probably argue that shape concepts are innately available to consciousness, and that when the blind person touches a sphere (for example), he connects that with his innate conception of a sphere. So Plato probably would have expected the suddenly non-blind person to be able to immediately connect his tactile experience of a sphere with his visual experience of a sphere. British empiricist philosophers would probably have argued along the lines that there is no such thing as an internal conception of a sphere. So they would disagree with Plato. Of course, the true answer is that neither Plato's team nor the empiricists were completely right. There are concepts, but they are formed based on sense data, not based on some kind of innate knowledge.

by chm 13y ago

arrrg 13y ago

Philosophical problems tend to turn into empirical problems with time. That’s completely normal. At some point in time you can’t actually investigate something empirically, so it’s a philosophical problem. As soon as you can, the philosophical problem turns into an empirical one.

Houshalter 13y ago
I don't understand how it's a philosophical question. It's a question about the state of reality. Even before anyone tried to actually test it, it was still a question about the way things are. It's like asking what's inside a room, and calling it a philosophical question. Then you open the door and actually look and suddenly it's not?
- saraid216 13y ago
  The Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment is definitely a philosophical problem, yes.
- arrrg 13y ago
  Yes, that’s how it works, basically. Only that at the time you are asking the question, it has to actually be impossible to find out what’s inside the room. Philosophy is for questions that cannot be investigated empirically. And that includes those that cannot yet be investigated empirically. That’s definitely where I see the role of philosophy.
- jleader 13y ago
  Aren't all (interesting) philosophical questions about reality, or at least some extended or modified version of reality as we know it? "What can be known?" "Do we have free will?" "Does God exist?" (hint, any question that starts "Do we..." or references questions of existence is asking about the state of reality)
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Possibly, though questions about morality or free-will, or the nature of knowledge or whatever, are not. But what I meant was that almost any question can be considered philosophical under that definition. Until you actually test it scientifically at least. And if that's the case, then the meaning of "philosophical questions" becomes worthless. A word that can describe anything is useless. The value of a word is that it can be used to differentiate between things.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      No, that’s not all! Philosophical questions also have to be relevant. That’s a squishy condition but I would really say it’s that simple. There is nothing special about philosophical questions per se, it’s whatever humans find intensely interesting and cannot (yet or ever) be investigated empirically. (I’m pretty sure I agree with you that something like morality can, at its core, not be empirically investigated, though empirical investigation can help create clarity in arguments about morality, though I’m not sure whether that’s an absolute truth that cannot ever be changed. Free will? Nature of knowledge? Those obviously are ripe for empirical investigation. I don’t see why we should never be able to answer those questions conclusively and empirically.)
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        I don't know about free will because it depends how you define it and it's not something I've ever understood, though it doesn't seem like a concept that is dependent on how the universe actually is in a physical sense. The nature of knowledge is pretty vague too, but if you mean the concept of how we can ever know things, that also doesn't depend on how the universe physically is. In another universe with different laws of physics, it would still apply. The same is true of mathematics, for example.

steveklabnik 13y ago

Empiricism is a philosophical position. (Furthermore, before finding a way to test this empirically, it was solely a thought experiment, and therefore, even more directly in the realm of philosophy.)

javert 13y ago

Because one of the fundamental questions in philosophy has always been whether knowledge comes from empirical sense experience or whether it comes from somewhere else. Having a definitive answer to this question could be thought to potentially shed light on that. Plato would probably argue that shape concepts are innately available to consciousness, and that when the blind person touches a sphere (for example), he connects that with his innate conception of a sphere. So Plato probably would have expected the suddenly non-blind person to be able to immediately connect his tactile experience of a sphere with his visual experience of a sphere. British empiricist philosophers would probably have argued along the lines that there is no such thing as an internal conception of a sphere. So they would disagree with Plato. Of course, the true answer is that neither Plato's team nor the empiricists were completely right. There are concepts, but they are formed based on sense data, not based on some kind of innate knowledge.