4 ms·

> The purpose of this essay was to illustrate how philosophy could be enriched by taking compu- tational complexity theory into account, much as it was enriched

> The purpose of this essay was to illustrate how philosophy could be enriched by taking compu- tational complexity theory into account, much as it was enriched almost a century ago by taking computability theory into account. In particular, I argued that computational complexity provides new insights into the explanatory content of Darwinism, the nature of mathematical knowledge and proof, computationalism, syntax versus semantics, the problem of logical omniscience, debates sur- rounding the Turing Test and Chinese Room, the problem of induction, the foundations of quantum mechanics, closed timelike curves, and economic rationality. O.M.G. Yet another natural scientist trying to coerce philosophy to his 'way of thinking'.

fbrusch 12y ago
How can illustrating "how philosophy could be enriched", or "providing new insights" be considered "coercive"?
j2kun 12y ago
Aaronson studies theoretical computer science, which is a subfield of mathematics. There is no coercion in his article. He is pointing out that while philosophers like to discuss the philosophical implications of computing, they tend not to discuss the more recent developments in the field that (he argues) would aid them in eliminating faulty arguments and clarifying terms like "artificial intelligence."
chrisdevereux 12y ago
Right observation. Wrong target.
deeviant 12y ago
Yes, darn it, it's the philosopher's job to coerce people into their way of thinking, what was he thinking? In all seriousness, I think philosophy has problem, it's disconnect with reality is widening.
syllogism 12y ago
He isn't a natural scientist. What he's saying is, "hey, I see you're working on complicated deductive reasoning problems. Here is an adjacent field of people working on deductive reasoning problems that are relevant to what you're thinking about."
wfn 12y ago
Well if you tried reading just past the abstract... > To forestall misunderstandings, let me add a note of humility before going further. This essay will touch on many problems that philosophers have debated for generations, such as strong AI, the problem of induction, the relation between syntax and semantics, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In none of these cases will I claim that computational complexity theory “dissolves” the philosophical problem—only that it contributes useful perspectives and insights. I’ll often explicitly mention philosophical puzzles that I think a complexity analysis either leaves untouched or else introduces itself. But even where I don’t do so, one shouldn’t presume that I think there are no such puzzles! Indeed, one of my hopes for this essay is that computer scientists, mathematicians, and other technical people who read it will come away with a better appreciation for the subtlety of some of the problems considered in modern analytic philosophy. (From some (very) cursory reading, this does seem to hold true.)

fbrusch 12y ago

How can illustrating "how philosophy could be enriched", or "providing new insights" be considered "coercive"?

j2kun 12y ago

Aaronson studies theoretical computer science, which is a subfield of mathematics. There is no coercion in his article. He is pointing out that while philosophers like to discuss the philosophical implications of computing, they tend not to discuss the more recent developments in the field that (he argues) would aid them in eliminating faulty arguments and clarifying terms like "artificial intelligence."

chrisdevereux 12y ago

Right observation. Wrong target.

deeviant 12y ago

Yes, darn it, it's the philosopher's job to coerce people into their way of thinking, what was he thinking? In all seriousness, I think philosophy has problem, it's disconnect with reality is widening.

syllogism 12y ago

He isn't a natural scientist. What he's saying is, "hey, I see you're working on complicated deductive reasoning problems. Here is an adjacent field of people working on deductive reasoning problems that are relevant to what you're thinking about."

wfn 12y ago

Well if you tried reading just past the abstract... > To forestall misunderstandings, let me add a note of humility before going further. This essay will touch on many problems that philosophers have debated for generations, such as strong AI, the problem of induction, the relation between syntax and semantics, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In none of these cases will I claim that computational complexity theory “dissolves” the philosophical problem—only that it contributes useful perspectives and insights. I’ll often explicitly mention philosophical puzzles that I think a complexity analysis either leaves untouched or else introduces itself. But even where I don’t do so, one shouldn’t presume that I think there are no such puzzles! Indeed, one of my hopes for this essay is that computer scientists, mathematicians, and other technical people who read it will come away with a better appreciation for the subtlety of some of the problems considered in modern analytic philosophy. (From some (very) cursory reading, this does seem to hold true.)