Is philosophy relevant anymore?

[fajfall]

Now that science answers so many matters philosphers used to ponder the existence/non-existence of, I'm wondering if it's worth reading?

If so, what do you suggest starting on? I read Socrates' book a few years ago but I didn't find much in it, just that he proves that there's definitely a soul and that reincarnation is definitely real, which he proves by his philosophical reasoning.

[YesNo]

I just finished Jimena Canales, "The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time". This is a history of twentieth century philosophy and science. It is a ground on which to pick out who you might want to read. In my case, I am now looking at Quine's essay, "Two dogmas of empiricism", that was referenced in that text.

The text also addresses your assumption that philosophy is not worth reading. If you ignore philosophy then pseudoscientific speculations have nothing to criticize them. For example, consider the idea of "time". What does it mean to you now? After you read the book, see if you understand it better from a philosophical perspective.

To examine causality see Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum, "Causality: a very short introduction".

There is also a famous essay in the philosophy of mind by Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a bat?" http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Part of the problem with starting with Socrates is you need to have a reason to read any philosopher's works. Get some questions that bother you and then look up what philosophers have to say about them. Most of my questions have to do with science. The philosophers, not the scientists, are most illuminating about each of these topics.

[kev67]

I think it is still relevant. It is quite a wide field. Some of it is now incorporated in social science. The logic and mathematical side is partly incorporated in computer science. There is an ethics branch, which I am less interested in. There are also law and economics branches, and apparently a branch that concerns itself with beauty. Some parts of science seem philosophical to me, especially those based on deductive reasoning, i.e. thought experiments. For example, Sadi Carnot's discovery of the maximum efficiency of a heat engine seems very philosophical to me.

[desiresjab]

Now that science answers so many matters philosphers used to ponder the existence/non-existence of, I'm wondering if it's worth reading?

If so, what do you suggest starting on? I read Socrates' book a few years ago but I didn't find much in it, just that he proves that there's definitely a soul and that reincarnation is definitely real, which he proves by his philosophical reasoning.

Counter-intuitive discoveries in science and mathematics, call for the philosopher's touch and interpretation, since the tools needed to approach the discoveries directly are quite out of reach for all but brilliant specialists. No one here is cranking out tensor equations, but we know certain notions about space-time and non-Euclidian geometry at a higher level of abstraction. There is little mud of mathematics under our fingernails.

The discoveries and theories of science are themselves a primary topic for philosophy these days. A big mistake is to try plodding through Aristotle or Kant out of subservience to getting them under your belt as an education. The part of philosophy that mainly interests me is cosmology, therefore I do not sit around reading Spinoza's ethics. I have a special interest in math.

You choose one of the great questions that interests you.

1 Is there a God

2 Origin of Universe

3 Existence

4 Morality

5 Politics

6 Perception

7 Nature of Reality


Do not feel obligated to finish philosphers until you feel one is worth following. Instead, follow the questions of your choice above and their branching. You will save years and be much more content that way.

[New Secret]

Philosophy was never relevant. It's a high definition of chatting up someone's ears off. It's high chatter. In ancient times I could imagine the appeal of philosophizing to increase one's brain power in social situations, perhaps to pass time because there wasn't a lot to do and so on. In this day and age there isn't much value in philosophy and it continues to live on as a time-passer in education circles. When I go to a book store I skip right over the philosophy section to the far more useful reference and almanac section.

[desiresjab]

Philosophy was never relevant. It's a high definition of chatting up someone's ears off. It's high chatter. In ancient times I could imagine the appeal of philosophizing to increase one's brain power in social situations, perhaps to pass time because there wasn't a lot to do and so on. In this day and age there isn't much value in philosophy and it continues to live on as a time-passer in education circles. When I go to a book store I skip right over the philosophy section to the far more useful reference and almanac section.

I am betting if you tried honestly you could come up with something of personal value to yourself in philosophy. It might be a question you never thought to ask. Philosophy does not build skyscrapers or train stations, what is does do is ask questions, however, usually of a quite abstract nature, so it is adept at these kinds of questions, in fact about the only forum for such questions.

As I have mentioned, one reasonable demand for philosophy these days is as an interpreter of the meaning and implications of scientific and mathematical discoveries.

If you are into it, first tell me what you do find highly relevant. Perhaps literature. You are here on a literature forum after all. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[Ecurb]

In general, things are relevant TO other things. To say philosophy is not "relevant" without mentioning the referent to which it is not relevant is almost meaningless.

[desiresjab]

In general, things are relevant TO other things. To say philosophy is not "relevant" without mentioning the referent to which it is not relevant is almost meaningless.

Indeed it is like asking: Is thinking at very high and very low levels of abstraction relevant anymore?

Now I can see that that even Shakespeare and Bellow were probably just Chatting me up, as well. And, mister, I don't appreciate being chatted up without my knowledge.

[Nicholas_]

I have run aground in my philisophical pursuit.

Philosophy has always been a quest for the "ground". What do we KNOW, without any doubt. "I think therefore I am", from there how far can we get? My experience thus far has been a plummeting away from even this grounding. Skepticism has destroyed everything. Hume engaged in me the eternal doubt but I heard Kant had a response and so optimistically I dove in to the basics - "a prolegomenon to any future metaphysics". Alas, Kant hedges his bets early on and I believe wisely so because in his revolt against "common sense" he resorts to logic and reason and I believe the truly shattering fact is that we cannot use reason to prove the validity of reason. Any logic we fall back on is useless unless we blindly follow logic. Furthermore, I have read of Godël who has, using two theorems, proven the impossibility of creating a complete set of rules to define all of mathematics and don't contradict each other at some point.

This accepted, there are many recourses - all essentially variants of solipsism/existentialism. Without a ground, philisophical speculation has no truth. Ethics, asthetics, right and wrong, all drifting without any objective point other than the individual. Until I See how truth can be anywhere outside of myself, philosophies answers are ash in my mouth.

[YesNo]

I don't find philosophy so depressing nor solipsistic, Nicholas.

Are Godel's results really all that bad? One of the last sentences in Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman's "Godel's Proof" says, "The theorem does indicate that the structure and power of the human mind are far more complex and subtle than any non-living machine yet envisaged." (pages 101-102). If you would like to discuss that book, I would find it an interesting thread.

Also when you talk about "the individual", which would be the ground of solipsism, are you sure the individual exists? I mean, we are here, but are we "individuals"? If we are not, then solipsism doesn't work either. Why might we not be individuals? We are able to live only in communities. It seems we are isolated, but how do we communicate with others?

One of the problems with idolizing mathematics is that one gets models of reality that are either continuous like a line or discrete like a billiard ball. More than two thousand years ago, Zeno showed that either of these positions leads to results that do not fit our experience of reality. Even today, when looking for those billiard balls we run into stuff that can't be described without invoking the idea of waves. My conclusion: reality is neither continuous nor discrete. Mathematics is just an approximation to it.

Is finding some ground that we are sure of really a good thing?

[Danik 2016]

I never read much of philosophy, but I think its importance lies in chalenging not only the objects and forms of knowledge. It also puts in check our very manner of thinking.
Philosophy engenders epistemology, ideology, methaphysics.
Without phylosophy we would be condemned to take the superficie for the essence.

[Nicholas_]

My experience with Godël is limited, YesNo, though I may pick up that book.

I like you're inclusion of Zeno. I might invest some time into his works because my entire knowledge of him is his famous paradox. As you've shown though, he's observations are not only cute contradictions but have some metaphysical meat as well.

As for the existence of the individual, my root point was we cannot be sure we are anything at all. Communication with others may be an illusion, we put forth thought and energy into a void and assume the minds perceptions report correctly a external existence. When are only perspective is from our minds, can we ever know our senses are not deceiving us? If we cast doubt upon reason and call ourselves insane then how can we trust what exists even before perception, in the realm of Kant?

Without a ground, philisophical assertions rely on the base assumption that we aren't living in absurdism. All fields of thought must prove this or they are functioning in a hypothetical apodosis

[yoki]

Despite realising the absurdity of existence, a human can never stop the compulsion to take it seriously. The difficulty of reconciling one's physical and cognitive dimensions means that, for certain minds, philosophy is a defense mechanism against insanity. It's relevance is therefore irrelevant. Perhaps.

[YesNo]

My experience with Godël is limited, YesNo, though I may pick up that book.

I like you're inclusion of Zeno. I might invest some time into his works because my entire knowledge of him is his famous paradox. As you've shown though, he's observations are not only cute contradictions but have some metaphysical meat as well.

As for the existence of the individual, my root point was we cannot be sure we are anything at all. Communication with others may be an illusion, we put forth thought and energy into a void and assume the minds perceptions report correctly a external existence. When are only perspective is from our minds, can we ever know our senses are not deceiving us? If we cast doubt upon reason and call ourselves insane then how can we trust what exists even before perception, in the realm of Kant?

Without a ground, philisophical assertions rely on the base assumption that we aren't living in absurdism. All fields of thought must prove this or they are functioning in a hypothetical apodosis

As Danik_2016 mentioned, philosophy's importance lies in challenging positions we may not even realize we hold. It is most useful when it challenges our own positions not those of other people, although other people help clarify our positions by stating their positions. Rather than look at philosophy as a source of sure knowledge, look at it as a process that undermines what we think is sure knowledge. The first thing philosophy has to do is make us aware of all the nonsense we believe to be true so it can challenge it.

For example, yoki mentions something about the "absurdity of existence". Let's question that. Why is existence absurd? In asking the question, I am not trying to change yoki's position. I prefer yoki keep his or her position so I can more easily argue against it. Ultimately I want to challenge my own position, to test it. I use yoki as someone who has offered an alternative. I need alternatives to have two or more positions among which to choose which one I think is correct.

As another example, why do you care if you have certain knowledge about anything? The species will survive without a proof of anything that leads to sure knowledge. We can get by, just as we have in the past, with what works.

[Jack of Hearts]

It's probably not relevant in the way most people imagine.

Philosophy can be like weight lifting for your mind. Methods of thinking and analysis become more generalized, which lead to heightened problem solving, etc.

Interpreting philosophy as a 'quest for truth' seems a bit passE, and can be the mark of an immature mind in some instances. For example, the young undergraduates who come to seminar and ceaselessly quote/interrupt with commentary, challenges, references to secular thinkers, etc. That process seems more emotive than curious or intellectual. The desire to 'stand on found ground' might be more psychological than philosophical.

Continental philosophy seems relevant only historically or where it points to analytic inquiry.

Alternatively, discussions in analytic philosophy seem equally as fruitless. If seems philosophy is simultaneously the least (directly) productive field but has serious benefits for cognitive capability and whatever that may yield (for example, you could probably easily design or interact with a relational database if you had studied enough predicate logic and set theory).

But, no, most people's version of 'philosophy' is about as useful as what they actually understand of it. Why Nietszche or Camus over, say, Spinoza? Poor Spinoza, hard to put on a t-shirt or an ironic mug when your work is rigorously derived from axioms and not inherently caustic (though it must've been at the time).






J

[YesNo]

That makes sense, Jack of Hearts. It occurred to me that some threads contain posts that function like free-flowing Socratic dialogue. I at least learn a lot from them.

[Jack of Hearts]

It occurred to me that some threads contain posts that function like free-flowing Socratic dialogue.

In what way? And how?

Not to discredit the dialogues, of course, if you can read them you should. They seem to be exciting in the way they point out hiccups in common processes. They also sate a literary craving because there's an arc through some of them.

And in the dialogues themselves Socrates admits that he has a following of young men who are interested in him humiliating others with his conversations.

But, be it because it's either 'newer' or 'more in vogure' or 'what's actually going on,' phil of language probably has much to say about the dialogues that undermines them ontologically. In that way, maybe you'd only learn as much from 'the Socratic method' as phil of language would've told you in the first place.

[YesNo]

I might be misunderstanding the Socratic method. It looks like a way for the participants to become aware of positions they held but did not fully understand.

The method goes like this as it applies to threads. Someone makes a comment. Someone else either accepts it or rejects it. The process of adding to the comment clarifies what was originally written. Just the process of writing a response, as I am doing now, makes me aware of details I would not have thought about had I not written a response.

Having more than one person contribute adds unexpectedness from each participant. This allows each of the participants to become more aware of the issues involved better than if each participant were simply talking to himself. I don't think Socrates knew where the original conversations were going to lead any more than modern participants in a thread know what to expect from it. He was not teaching as much as learning. Of course, his previous interest in the issues might have given him an advantage over other less experienced participants.

[Jack of Hearts]

That seems to be a pretty good description of it.

But from the dialogues themselves it seems Socrates' actual motives oscillate or are not readily apparent. It's been years, but yours truly seems to remember walking away from the works thinking of Socrates as a professional 'bubble burster.' And of course the struggle with the sophists, who used rhetoric to motivate a desired outcome, versus Plato n' friends who supposedly married rhetoric to reason.

The more Jack of Hearts thinks about this, the sillier he thinks the 'Socratic method' is, especially as a learning tool. Not entirely sure how learning occurs, but that someone reached back into Plato and appropriated something they didn't bother to read all the way through, then made a generations of high school and college students participate in... seems somewhat cynical in nature.

The dialectic. Really all that's happening is two people are imposing reasoning structures on conversation. It's definitely something you could do, but why not just study formal logic instead?






J

[YesNo]

The more Jack of Hearts thinks about this, the sillier he thinks the 'Socratic method' is, especially as a learning tool.

I am associating the Socratic method with a conversation between at least two people where they are arguing about something. They each learn in two different ways:

(1) They learn by formulating their own position which they are not completely aware of but the process of writing or speaking their position clarifies it for them. This is what I am doing now by writing a response. I do not have an answer prepared in advance. I create it as I write it.

(2) They learn by being surprised by what the other person has to say which forces them to look at an alternative they did not originally think of. This is what you offered me by responding. You have introduced something new that I would not have thought of from my own perspective.



The dialectic. Really all that's happening is two people are imposing reasoning structures on conversation. It's definitely something you could do, but why not just study formal logic instead?


Were we computers, you might have a point. Even as computers we could not get past the inherent incompleteness of the axiom system we are using.

Since we are not computers, what are we doing when we engage in a dialectic? This is where continental philosophy such as phenomenology or existentialism might offer insight by focusing on subjectivity. Can that be reduced to an analytic philosopher's attempt to reach certainty by removing subjectivity? Can the analytic philosopher make everything objective? I don't think that is possible.

There is also an issue of what is an individual in the Socratic method or on a thread such as this one. A computer is an individual connecting to other individual computers through a network. They make this thread possible for us to read and participate in, but is what they do a good metaphor or model for what we do when we communicate to each other on this thread? I don't think it is. The reason it is not is because we are not individuals.

[Jack of Hearts]

We'd probably be better off understanding the exchange as emotive rather than logical. Plato had the luxury of wrapping his arguments in characters and scenarios. Yet you can still disrobe them and find the skeleton and diagram Plato.

We, on the other hand,aren't so lucky. How much internal consistency would you expect to find in Jack of Hearts throughout his day? How many stances does he hold, and how many logically preclude each other.

If you could observe that, you might identify a bit more with the Christian Fundamentalist Staunch Republican hanging around the bathhouse. Kinda hard to judge a gymnastic while you're doing one yourself, trust.

So probably Plato's dialogues inspired something called a 'Socratic method' but are probably not that. And probably, rather than exchanging with you or helping to enlighten you, Jack of Hearts is more entertaining you or offering you comfort as you march toward an oblivion as senseless as your formulation. Pardon the implicit premises.

Maybe that's the 'dialectic.'

Maybe it's all idiots howling. Hopefully this (Jack of Hearts') idiot's howling noise is amenable or soothing to you.







J

[YesNo]

Plato's dialogues were reworkings of whatever Socrates was doing when he talked to people. It is not the dialogues but the act of talking with others that is important here and talking to each other is what we are doing now. We are not writing dialogues but we are part of a dialog which is what I think Socrates was originally doing.

I suspect the dichotomy between emotive and logical is false. It is not Captain Kirk and Spock. We aren't one or the other when we talk and perhaps we are neither depending on what those words are supposed to mean. You may have described it best: we are "entertaining" each other. That is a better way of looking at the Socratic method than to analyze it into emotive and logical components.

The more I think of it, I really like the entertainment metaphor. Do computers entertain each other? They don't. The entertainment metaphor emphasizes our differences from computers. It emphasizes our subjectivity.

What is the value of entertainment? Not necessarily to soothe, but to enlighten, because you provide me with something new that I would not have come up with on my own without you. That entertains and enlightens.

[Neurotibot]

Now that science answers so many matters philosphers used to ponder the existence/non-existence of, I'm wondering if it's worth reading?

If so, what do you suggest starting on? I read Socrates' book a few years ago but I didn't find much in it, just that he proves that there's definitely a soul and that reincarnation is definitely real, which he proves by his philosophical reasoning.

Reading the early philosophers is irrelevant unless you're curious about the roots of philosophy or plan on becoming a philosophy professor.

Is philosophy relevant today? I think so. As long as humanity wrestles with questions of ethics, politics, and any other gray area you can think of, we'll need philosophy. Philosophy is the science of thinking, in my opinion; a philospher applies his training to tackle the big questions posed by his society.

[desiresjab]

What did Socrates have to say about transgender outhouse rules?

I will tell you exactly. He said: "Transgender outhouse rules."

[YesNo]

I have seen outhouses with two seats or holes. Perhaps if one wanted to be politically correct one should make an outhouse with five seats arranged in random order:

1) A seat for men.
2) A seat for women.
3) A seat for people who are neither men nor women.
4) A seat for people who are both.
5) A seat for people who do not want to admit what they are.

[EmptySeraph]

Hindu philosophy pursues deliverance; Greek — with the exception of Pyrrho, Epicurus, and a few unclassifiable figures — is a disappointment: it seeks only . . . truth.
Kant waited until the last days of his old age to perceive the dark side of existence and to indicate “the failure of any rational theodicy.” . . . Others have been luckier: to them this occurred even before they began to philosophize.

These two fragments, taken out of Cioran's Anathemas and Admirations, suffice for explaining the meanders of philosophy.

[Danik 2016]

A not so philosophic question.
I´m a bit confused about the word "outhouse".
In older texts outhouse would be a place to grow plants that can´t be grown in the garden, because they need a special temperature.
On Litnet "outhouse" is used as synonym for toilet. Is it any kind of toilet, or toilets that are built outside the main building?

[YesNo]

I was using the word outhouse as a primitive toilet built outside the dwelling without running water. I think desiresjab was also referring to some court cases in the US against public institutions such as schools that raised questions about which public bathroom, the men's or the women's, those who consider themselves transgender are allowed to use.

Edit: I think you are referring to a "greenhouse" or a "hot house" if the greenhouse is heated. There is also "garden shed" or "shed" where gardening tools are kept.

[YesNo]

Hindu philosophy pursues deliverance; Greek — with the exception of Pyrrho, Epicurus, and a few unclassifiable figures — is a disappointment: it seeks only . . . truth.
Kant waited until the last days of his old age to perceive the dark side of existence and to indicate “the failure of any rational theodicy.” . . . Others have been luckier: to them this occurred even before they began to philosophize.

These two fragments, taken out of Cioran's Anathemas and Admirations, suffice for explaining the meanders of philosophy.

Cioran makes too many assertions without adequate justification. I have tried reading some of his works without finding them very enlightening. They are more like prompts for discussions.

Edit:

To illustrate what I mean, consider what you have quoted.


Hindu philosophy pursues deliverance;

That is rather vague. It is sort of like saying, "The sky is blue." It is a kind of common sense that may be false in specific instances.


Greek — with the exception of Pyrrho, Epicurus, and a few unclassifiable figures — is a disappointment: it seeks only . . . truth.

This is another vague statement. Its purpose is to establish authority by name-dropping Pyrrho and Epicurus. However, as far as its content goes it is like saying, "The grass is green."


Kant waited until the last days of his old age to perceive the dark side of existence and to indicate “the failure of any rational theodicy.”

I have no clue if this is true or not nor am I interested in Kant's life enough to find out. However, he dropped the name Kant and offered a detail suggesting he knows what he is talking about. This establishes authority, but I have no way to tell if his authority is worth trusting any more than the authority of a car salesman who wants me to buy a specific make and model.

Then he introduced the ideas of "failure", "rational" and "theodicy". He is building up for his irrational, as I see it, punch line:


. . . Others have been luckier: to them this occurred even before they began to philosophize.

What does "luck" have to do with this? It is another rhetorical tool, a distraction rather than an argument, to put the readers' critical processes to sleep.

I'll admit when I read Cioran it was in French and I don't understand that language as well as English, but the example you provided of his writing in English makes me think I understood him well enough. He is not worth reading, but if you would like to discuss him, I would be willing to do so.

[Jackson Richardson]

A not so philosophic question.
I´m a bit confused about the word "outhouse".
In older texts outhouse would be a place to grow plants that can´t be grown in the garden, because they need a special temperature.
On Litnet "outhouse" is used as synonym for toilet. Is it any kind of toilet, or toilets that are built outside the main building?

I imagine "outhouse" for loo, toilet, lavatory or WC is an American euphenism like rest room -which the British find very funny.

If the enclosed space for growing plants has glass walls, it is a greenhouse, at least in the UK. Otherwise it could be a potting shed, garden shed or as my other half calls it "nursery". Any of those could be an outhouse, but the term means any space seperate from the main house whether used for gardening or not, unless I suppose it is a garage.

Not sure what this has to do with philosophy.

[Jack of Hearts]

Plato's dialogues were reworkings of whatever Socrates was doing when he talked to people.

Which yours truly thinks was structuring premises.


It is not the dialogues but the act of talking with others that is important here and talking to each other is what we are doing now. We are not writing dialogues but we are part of a dialog which is what I think Socrates was originally doing.

Disagree. Interpret the dialogues as a guised philosophical system. Kind of fitting, actually, when you think about the marriage of rhetoric and reason.


I suspect the dichotomy between emotive and logical is false. It is not Captain Kirk and Spock. We aren't one or the other when we talk and perhaps we are neither depending on what those words are supposed to mean.

Also disagree here. Hume wrote that reason is motive. That's a powerful idea. While it may not be a dichotomy between 'logic and emotions,' Jack of Hearts offers firstly emotion. Mostly emotion. Almost entirely emotion.


What is the value of entertainment? Not necessarily to soothe, but to enlighten, because you provide me with something new that I would not have come up with on my own without you. That entertains and enlightens.

As spontaneous and controllable as what you might experience if you just shut your eyes and measured your thoughts. Which philosopher wrote about us all as survivors in a shipwreck with just enough for each of us to float on our own debris; not a pinch more for our 'truth' or philosophy? Emerson.






J

[YesNo]

Which yours truly thinks was structuring premises.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.




Disagree. Interpret the dialogues as a guised philosophical system. Kind of fitting, actually, when you think about the marriage of rhetoric and reason.

I agree that the dialogues that Plato wrote are a philosophical system. What I am suggesting is that what Socrates actually did was more like what we do in these threads. We don't know where it will lead us and we need and use each other as a means to challenge us beyond our limited perspectives.



Also disagree here. Hume wrote that reason is motive. That's a powerful idea. While it may not be a dichotomy between 'logic and emotions,' Jack of Hearts offers firstly emotion. Mostly emotion. Almost entirely emotion.

I am not sure if I agree or not with you.

I am suspicious of dichotomies of which logic and emotions are one. They are cultural simplifications. Another dichotomy is determinism and chance. I don't think either determinism or chance exist.



As spontaneous and controllable as what you might experience if you just shut your eyes and measured your thoughts. Which philosopher wrote about us all as survivors in a shipwreck with just enough for each of us to float on our own debris; not a pinch more for our 'truth' or philosophy? Emerson.


I am not following you. However, I disagree with the "shipwreck" and "debris" metaphors. Why use negative metaphors to describe your humanity?

[Blanchot]

There has been a lot of debates surrounding this for the past several years. Progress is also contingent upon getting things wrong, and ideas/theories can be proven to be correct at a later date. There are some philosophical theory that is counter intuitive to materialistic sciences in regards to ontology, but, I believe that it provides plenty of uses to cognition, metaphysics, and other branches such as history that give us new insight.

[EmptySeraph]

I'll admit when I read Cioran it was in French and I don't understand that language as well as English, but the example you provided of his writing in English makes me think I understood him well enough. He is not worth reading but if you would like to discuss him, I would be willing to do so.

How bold an affirmation! Surely this inflexion of the voice, that is easily recognisable even in writing and which emerges as an evidence for one's convictions, is placed on a very solid foundation that, obviously, allows the uttering of such lamentable assertions. Fear not, my irrecuperable enamoured by philosophy fellow, for I have just the adequate aphorism, coming from the same author, to counteract your turpitude.

Aristote, Thomas d'Aquin, Hegel - trois asserviseurs de l'esprit. La pire form de despotisme est le système, en philosphie et en tout.

This one is from De l'inconvénient d'être né, a book that, true to form, is comprised exclusively of aphorisms, of fragments, of disparate morphemes and of contradictions camouflaged as the debris of who knows what deranged thought. So, you're trying to analyse Cioran's work, ideas, style and, ultimately, system (what an emetic word!) from a purely objective position, as it ought to be done in philosophy, innit?! Look, for instance, what the author himself is saying about this eclectic way of writing and about his idiosyncratic remnants that, to some degree, resemble the great moralists (he is, in fact, the last one) in an interview later in his life:

JW: The first time we met, you were saying that a writer's education must
remain incomplete.
EMC: Ah yes. A writer mustn't know things in depth. If he speaks of
something, he shouldn't know everything about it, only the things that go
with his temperament. He should not be objective. One can go into depth
with a subject, but in a certain direction, not trying to cover the whole
thing. For a writer the university is death.
JW: Could you speak about the evolution of your use of the aphorism?
Where does it come from?
EMC: I'm not sure exactly. I think it was a phenomenon of laziness perhaps.
You know, very often aphorisms have been the last sentence of a
page. Aphorisms are conclusions, the development is suppressed, and they
are what remains. It's a dubious genre, suspect, and it is rather French.
The Germans, for example, only have Lichtenberg and Nietzsche, who
got it from Chamfort and the moralists. For me it was mostly due to my
dislike of developing things.
JW: But what made you decide to use the aphorism for certain books and
not others? Your second book, Syllogismes, was all aphorisms, though the
first wasn't; for the next twenty years you hardly use them in your books,
and then The Trouble with Being Born is all aphorisms too, as is much of
Drawn and Quartered.
EMC: Well, now I only write this kind of stuff, because explaining bores
me terribly. That's why I say when I've written aphorisms it's because I've
sunk back into fatigue-why bother? And so, the aphorism is scorned by
"serious" people, professors look down upon it.
JW: Because professors can't do anything with an aphorist.
EMC: Absolutely not. When they read a book of aphorisms, they
say, "Oh, look what this guy said ten pages back, now he's saying the
contrary. He's not serious." I can put two aphorisms that are contradictory
right next to each other. Aphorisms are also momentary truths.
They're not decrees. And I could tell you in nearly every case why I wrote
this or that phrase and when. It's always set in motion by an encounter,
an incident, a fit of temper, but they all have a cause. It's not at all
gratuitous.

(JW stands for Jason Weiss and EMC for E.M. Cioran)

I conclude by saying that Cioran must be understood only through empathy. He's merely an iconoclast, a skeptic that refutes all the dogmas, convictions and systems. You can only identify yourself with the author, suffer for him, or beside him (it depends on the reader, and on the sum of his afflictions), sketch a stupid grin and close his book because he's not offering answers, nor arguments. He's all about the questions, the big ones, or anyway, the ones that can torment one's peripatetic existence.
Having said this, I've nothing more to add rather than another quote, but this time from a thinker whose ideas you probably hold in higher esteem, because of his predilection for logic, and I think you should keep it in mind as a means to restrain your potential further ignominies: ''Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' In this case, that is Cioran's, you should rest your case, for it's obvious you're not compatible with his style.

[YesNo]

There has been a lot of debates surrounding this for the past several years. Progress is also contingent upon getting things wrong, and ideas/theories can be proven to be correct at a later date. There are some philosophical theory that is counter intuitive to materialistic sciences in regards to ontology, but, I believe that it provides plenty of uses to cognition, metaphysics, and other branches such as history that give us new insight.

Welcome, Blanchot! What philosophers do you find interesting? Or what science?

[YesNo]

How bold an affirmation! Surely this inflexion of the voice, that is easily recognisable even in writing and which emerges as an evidence for one's convictions, is placed on a very solid foundation that, obviously, allows the uttering of such lamentable assertions. Fear not, my irrecuperable enamoured by philosophy fellow, for I have just the adequate aphorism, coming from the same author, to counteract your turpitude.

I like your use of the words, "lamentable assertions". That is a perfect description of my view of Cioran's writing. He says nothing of value, but he does make pompous assertions.



Aristote, Thomas d'Aquin, Hegel - trois asserviseurs de l'esprit. La pire form de despotisme est le système, en philosphie et en tout.

I don't read French very well. But Cioran is very easy for me to read. Le petit prince is more of a challenge for me than Cioran.

Now examine that sentence critically. Did Cioran say anything? No. He didn't. Sure, he dropped three names but that is a rhetorical trick to make the gullible reader think he knows something. He then puts in "asserviseurs" and "despotisme" and "systeme" to add rhetorical scorn.



This one is from De l'inconvénient d'être né, a book that, true to form, is comprised exclusively of aphorisms, of fragments, of disparate morphemes and of contradictions camouflaged as the debris of who knows what deranged thought. So, you're trying to analyse Cioran's work, ideas, style and, ultimately, system (what an emetic word!) from a purely objective position, as it ought to be done in philosophy, innit?!

You are getting my position wrong. I don't think one can completely objectify subjectivity. However, that does not mean a philosopher is permitted to talk nonsense. I'm expecting Cioran to say something that I will be able to understand subjectively, one human being to another. I have no intention of uncritically accepting the Cioran catechism just because he happens to shoot his mouth.


Look, for instance, what the author himself is saying about this eclectic way of writing and about his idiosyncratic remnants that, to some degree, resemble the great moralists (he is, in fact, the last one) in an interview later in his life:

For Cioran to call himself the "last" or even a "great" moralist is outrageous self-promotion. As far as I'm concern he is neither. Here is an article that criticizes Cioran's more youthful antisemitism claiming that it "cannot be ignored": http://www.upm.ro/jrls/JRLS-05/Rls%2005%2071.pdf



JW: The first time we met, you were saying that a writer's education must
remain incomplete.
EMC: Ah yes. A writer mustn't know things in depth. If he speaks of
something, he shouldn't know everything about it, only the things that go
with his temperament. He should not be objective. One can go into depth
with a subject, but in a certain direction, not trying to cover the whole
thing. For a writer the university is death.

Notice how Cioran jumps to a dubious conclusion about the university and death with no argument preceding it. Of course, this is the sort of "lamentable assertions" that Cioran serves to his devotees.



JW: Could you speak about the evolution of your use of the aphorism?
Where does it come from?
EMC: I'm not sure exactly. I think it was a phenomenon of laziness perhaps.
You know, very often aphorisms have been the last sentence of a
page. Aphorisms are conclusions, the development is suppressed, and they
are what remains. It's a dubious genre, suspect, and it is rather French.
The Germans, for example, only have Lichtenberg and Nietzsche, who
got it from Chamfort and the moralists. For me it was mostly due to my
dislike of developing things.

I agree with him that his approach is a form of laziness. However, I think more is true: he really doesn't know what he is talking about, but he needs to make the impression that he does.



JW: But what made you decide to use the aphorism for certain books and
not others? Your second book, Syllogismes, was all aphorisms, though the
first wasn't; for the next twenty years you hardly use them in your books,
and then The Trouble with Being Born is all aphorisms too, as is much of
Drawn and Quartered.
EMC: Well, now I only write this kind of stuff, because explaining bores
me terribly. That's why I say when I've written aphorisms it's because I've
sunk back into fatigue-why bother? And so, the aphorism is scorned by
"serious" people, professors look down upon it.

Aphorisms are the sort of bull one hears from politicians and incompetent philosophers who can't explain themselves.

Note: I just made an assertion. Whether it is lamentable or not depends on the reader.



JW: Because professors can't do anything with an aphorist.
EMC: Absolutely not. When they read a book of aphorisms, they
say, "Oh, look what this guy said ten pages back, now he's saying the
contrary. He's not serious." I can put two aphorisms that are contradictory
right next to each other. Aphorisms are also momentary truths.
They're not decrees. And I could tell you in nearly every case why I wrote
this or that phrase and when. It's always set in motion by an encounter,
an incident, a fit of temper, but they all have a cause. It's not at all
gratuitous.

(JW stands for Jason Weiss and EMC for E.M. Cioran)

I conclude by saying that Cioran must be understood only through empathy.

Empathy? I am not an undergraduate trying to get an A in Cioran's class. I am not a true believer memorizing his sacred texts. I am under no obligation to cut him any slack.


He's merely an iconoclast, a skeptic that refutes all the dogmas, convictions and systems.

He is a source of dogma, convictions and systems for his devotees to proselytize. These systems do not have to be consistent. His followers need to believe. They need faith. They need to hope he is right. And maybe they even need empathy (love) and then they will reach the nirvana of understanding their messiah holds out to them.


You can only identify yourself with the author, suffer for him, or beside him (it depends on the reader, and on the sum of his afflictions), sketch a stupid grin and close his book because he's not offering answers, nor arguments. He's all about the questions, the big ones, or anyway, the ones that can torment one's peripatetic existence.

Unfortunately, I don't cut philosophers any slack unless I plan to use that slack against them.



Having said this, I've nothing more to add rather than another quote, but this time from a thinker whose ideas you probably hold in higher esteem, because of his predilection for logic, and I think you should keep it in mind as a means to restrain your potential further ignominies: ''Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' In this case, that is Cioran's, you should rest your case, for it's obvious you're not compatible with his style.

I have only begun my case against Cioran provided you are willing to tell me more.

[ajmackiel]

I think philosophy is definitely relevant and it can help us understand ourselves and others better. Philosophy engenders introspection and reflection and facilitates our critical thinking about the world. There's many good starters for philosophy. I guess it depends on what type of philosophy interests you. For example, I really like existentialism and Buddhist philosophy and the comparisons and contrasts between Western and Eastern philosophy. And by no means do I find that science can replace philosophy. In fact, I think science today suffers from a lack of philosophy and it is guided by a too narrow-minded philosophy. For example, new medications being guided by a narrow-minded view of what it means to heal disease. Also there are many ethical problems associated with science that get into philosophy such as what I consider the ultimate philosophical question about science: Is is it true that just because we can do something mean we ought to do it? More than ever today, I believe, we need philosophy. We need people to pay attention to the moral consequences of our high tech society and scientific technologies such as nuclear weapons and the new age of warfare.

[YesNo]

I agree that science cannot replace philosophy. Science is a way of reporting observations in order to make predictions. It is a past full of observations and a future full of predictions with little interest in the present. The "now" in science is a single point where t = 0 (assuming we start the coordinate system with now being the origin). The mathematics used by scientists suggests determinism and time-reversibility but we experience some free will and experience time as irreversible.

[Tammuz]

The climax of philosophy, not only in our days, is - in my opinion - the Integral Theory of Ken Wilber. Here are two links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

One of Wilber´s prominent fans is Bill Clinton (as well as Hillary):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEjKr2gA8Wk

[YesNo]

Is there a YouTube video, or some other online source, that you would recommend related to Ken Wilber? From the Wikipedia article, he sounds interesting, but I don't understand his position. Splitting knowledge into four quadrants based on individual-collective and interior-exterior sounds interesting.

[Tammuz]

Is there a YouTube video, or some other online source, that you would recommend related to Ken Wilber? From the Wikipedia article, he sounds interesting, but I don't understand his position. Splitting knowledge into four quadrants based on individual-collective and interior-exterior sounds interesting.

A useful entry into his theory is his early book ´The Atman Project´, online available as PDF. Please check Google for ´The Atman Project - Imagomundi´. This post is denied when I insert the link.

Here is a video with Ken explaining the levels of consciousness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXyiDI6e26o

[YesNo]

I enjoyed the video, Tammuz. I usually see only the vertical development. I don't understand what's involved in the horizontal development that Wilber refers to.

[Jack of Hearts]

A fradulent hock of crap.





J

[YesNo]

Could you be more specific? What do you think is not crap? Do you have links to some of it?

[Jack of Hearts]

You're not crap.

Here's something that is not crap, with a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2xBaX5awlc







J

[YesNo]

I listened to the song. What do you think of the movie "Melancholia"? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/melancholia-2008/

[Jack of Hearts]

Seems a bit like a fraudulent hock of crap?






J





Sorry, just being obnoxious. It actually looks pretty interesting.

[Vota]

If I recall correctly, Science is an off-shoot of Philosophy, as in, Philosophy subsumes Science.

I believe Science is credited as having been developed by Francis Bacon with his invention of The Scientific Method in his Novum Organum. Science was initially labeled Natural Philosophy, but much like children that grow up and divorce themselves from their parents, so too did Science from Philosophy.

I need know nothing more than that to ascertain Philosophy's perennial worth.

[YesNo]

I'm not sure if you are positive or negative toward Philosophy, Vota.

Let me ask a question that could be considered both philosophical and scientific that I have been thinking about lately and that introduces more specific ideas: Do you think that artificial intelligence is possible?

[Vota]

"I need know nothing more than that to ascertain Philosophy's perennial worth." - Vota

I was implying that because Philosophy spawned Science, Philosophy is indeed worthwhile. I could have gone further and talked about how Philosophy asks questions and leads to imaginative thinking - both of which can help Science. Philosophy can also provide moral guidance through ethics; it can teach people how to reason better and think logically; it strengthens the mind etc.

I have the deepest respect for Philosophy.

As to your question, I do believe Artificial Intelligence is possible. If your question is approached from a biological perspective, and if you believe in The Theory of Evolution, then humans attained self awareness over time, through constant reiteration into a form that was capable of it. One might look at the development of technology in a similar matter, except, rather than evolution and natural selection being the marionettist of human development, humans have taken that position in relation to the development of AI. It think it is only a matter of time before it happens. It may have already happened for all we know, considering the secrets our governments keep from us.

I don't have much knowledge about AI or technology for that matter, other than building computers, which isn't any harder to do than basic mechanic work, so I can only engage in guesswork with this question. My philosophical knowledge is also pretty limited at this point in time, so there's also that to take into consideration.

The saying, "Science Fiction tends to become reality," is an accurate statement IMO. People were writing about space travel, deep sea travel, advanced technologies and more, long before it actually happened. I don't see AI being any different.

I'm in the camp that thinks this is a very slippery slope. The recent HBO TV show West World exposes many of the problems that AI brings with it. The Terminator movies are merely the doom and glood aspect, but what of rights, self determination, and the myriad considerations and problems that AI will bring with it? What happens if an AI in a computer program decides it would like a physical body to move around in. Can an AI be allowed to own a gun? What happens if an AI rapes a human? What happens when the AI are smarter than the humans that made them? The list is nearly endless. Perhaps AI will be the key to unlocking Interstellar travel that occurs within the lifespan of the average human being. Maybe AI will help Transhumanism efforts, allowing people to live hundreds of years? Perhaps all diseases will be cured? Who knows?

Slippery slope.

[YesNo]

That clarifies my initial wonder since you do think philosophy is valuable. Some think science has replaced the need for it, or rather models used by science are all that one needs: reality is whatever model currently works.

For my part I think science ends when data gathering and analysis are complete with a model that can be put to use. As soon as one speculates that the model represents reality as it is, then one is talking philosophy.

The question about AI brings out this distinction between science and philosophy. People who think AI is possible allow for two possibilities: strong AI, where machines are actually conscious, and weak AI, where one thinks that those machines just might be conscious. There is a third possibility they don't mention that is likely more commonly believed: no AI, there is no point in even fantasizing that those machines are conscious. I'm of the "no AI" opinion. For example, when my smart phone breaks, I get a new one and trade the old one in if possible. I don't give the old one a funeral. I don't cry over it like I might a beloved pet.

So what justifies a no AI opinion? Or a strong or weak AI position? That would have to be a philosophic argument about reality because the underlying mathematical model used to program artificial intelligence, that is, the underlying science is not in question. We all use it.

[Vota]

I can't offer much more on AI other than my initial comments as I'd end up talking out of my ***.

Philosophy is clearly worthwhile for some very obvious reasons. If one does not choose to follow a religion, then how is one to conduct themself around others? Science cannot teach you how to be a "good" person, or how to rightly act towards others. Cultural and societal norms aren't necessarily good guides for behavior. Sure, you can use the Scientific Method to run experiments by forming hypotheses about how X saying or action will produce Y result in a person, run the experiment, and then observe the results and analyze the data, but that's stupid - because Ethics already guides with a moral compass, and provides many logical reasons as to why its tenets should be followed.

Personally, I think Philosophy's primary worth in modern times is as a mental strengthener and moral compass for those that are not religious. A "proper" Christian has a great moral foundation. The Ten Commandments and the Gospels of Jesus cover a lot of ground in how to act towards others, and the saying, "Do unto others as ye would have done unto you" really is the Golden Rule, subsuming all other commandments if legitimately considered before each saying or action one commits to. This is probably why I find myself drawn to Kant despite hearing of the difficulty of his work. The Categorical Imperative makes sense to me, and seems to be an elaboration of the Golden Rule.

But if one is not religious, then Philosophy can provide some semblance of consolation, similar to, if not as strong, as faith based systems. The Man on the Hill from the book Tom Jones said it well before proselytizing the superiority of religion, "They elevate the mind, and steel and harden it against the capricious invasions of fortune. They not only instruct in the Knowledge of Wisdom, but confirm men in her habits, and demonstrate plainly that this must be our guide, if we propose ever to arrive at the greatest worldly happiness, or to defend ourselves with any tolerable security against the misery which everywhere surrounds and invests us."

[YesNo]

I think we agree on the relevance of philosophy.

Regarding morality, the Buddha's middle way seems to me to make sense. One is moral so one can get on with the more important activity of being human. It involves choices even when it is done unconsciously, that is, when one is not explicitly aware of each choice/action such as how one moves the feet when one is walking. But I don't know much about Buddhism.

[Tammuz]

Siddharta Gautama, founder of Buddhism, viewed suffering as a basic condition of life, being caused by the lack of personal enlightenment, that is, the lack of being aware of the Nirvana. Not being enlightened means to cling to ephemeral thoughts, emotions, and material shapes, and thereby to expose oneself to the experience of disappointment, illness, pain, and death. There is, according to Buddha, only one ´place´ of true bliss: the Nirvana, the deathless dimension. Existing in the Samsara, the world of ephemeral phenomena, is necessarily accompanied by suffering, even if temporarily the illusion of happiness and fulfilment can be produced due to the effect of the imaginary ego-function.

A central Buddhist idea is the concept of ´non-self´ (an-atman) by which Buddha rejected the Brahmanic teaching of ´Brahman = true self´. This concept aims at preventing the adept from clinging to the idea of a self (or ego). Samsara and Nirvana are two poles of an existential dualism, since Buddha thought the Samsara to be real and not just an illusion (maya), as the Brahmanism teaches. Therefore, Buddha can be called a dualist, what is contrary to monistic Brahmanism.

However, some centuries later Mahayana Buddhism converged with Brahmanism concerning the monistic nature of the world.

Early Buddhism (Hinayana), which was exclusively based on Buddha´s teaching, hold that the phenomenal world consists of ´dharmas´ (basic factors of existence), including dharmas as elements of the material world as well as dharmas as elements of the mental world (consciousness and thinking). Both these elementary categories are not recognizable for the sensory organs. Since they have no substance or essence, they emerge and decay according to the principle of causality, the so-called ´conditional nexus´ (or ´causal nexus´). Thus they are empty of self-being or essence, however, they ´exist´.

This very form of existence is denied by later Mahayana Buddhism by creating the innovative concept of ´Shunyata´ (emptiness). The protagonist of this school was Nagarjuna, teaching that all things (or dharmas) not only lack essence or self-being, but also existence. The basic idea of this was the insight into the incapability of conceptional thinking to seize the true nature of the world. Notions such as dharma, existence, being, and non-being cannot appropriately describe reality and therefore have to be dialectically negated. Paradoxically, ´Shunyata´ is thus a concept which basically denies conceptional thinking because it produces mere illusion. To put it quite simply, Nagarjuna´s method was to negate concepts as well as their opposites, for example:

There is being.

There is no being.

There is being and there is non-being.

There is neither being nor non-being.

(and so on)

According to the concept of Shunyata the true nature of the world is unrecognizable by means of conceptual thinking. However, it is recognizable by means of meditative expansion of consciousness.

As to that, Mahayana Buddhism differs from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who thought the objects of the phenomenal world to be constituted solely by innate mental structures on the basis of sense-data, which on their part are also not mirroring the true thing which Kant coined the´Thing-in-itself´, existing far beyond the reach of consciousness and basically unattainable for it.

[YesNo]

The issue of dualism and monism is confusing. Your description, Tammuz, seems to make sense.

My own view of it, which changes, is monistic. The world around me is not an illusion, but my view of what it is might be an illusion. I sort of agree with the Shunyata position the real world is "unrecognizable by means of conceptual thinking" except I think we can get some insight through the use of concepts. The problem is that we cannot completely objectify subjective consciousness which is what concepts attempt to do. So concepts will ultimately fail.

The world including ourselves is an immanent manifestation of consciousness. It is all Mind or Consciousness and we are part of it. When we look at it and manipulate it we think it is unconscious stuff. That is our illusion, but it is not an illusion. It is really there. It is just not unconscious matter as our concepts would tend to describe it.

[Tammuz]

Maybe Hegel gives a useful hint to a solution of the dilemma whether reality is dualistic or monistic. In his view, it is both, that is, dialectical. The individual subject is merely a reflex or stadium of the absolute subject, the world spirit (WS). In the beginning, the WS externalizes into objectivity, thereby constituting the counterpart of objectivity, that is, subjectivity (consciousness). This is, with a non-Hegelian term, ´involution´. Thus the WS has split into contrary poles. However, these poles are totally dependent on one another, they are two sides of one coin, the WS. This contradiction is, for Hegel, indissoluble.

Absolute knowledge is only possible by completely seeing through this state of affairs. This process is called ´reflexion´. By this the WS, split into a manifold of individual consciousnesses, gets self-awareness and self-knowledge until the point of absolute knowledge. This ascending process is ´evolution´.

Moreover, Hegel holds that the subject is identical with substance, which is the totality of consciousness operations and transformations.

In this view the material world seems to vanish into thin air since it serves only the development of absolute consciousness and has no being in itself. It seems to me, however, that the dialectical approach is a step in the right direction: consciousness is not an individual achievement but a universal quality in which individuals merely are participating, a bit in the sense of the sort of transcendent participation which Plato coins ´methexis´, but not in ideas but in a more Brahmanic type of absolute spirit, such as Brahman.

Hegel´s ideas could be synchronized with Nagarjuna´s concept of Shunyata in the following way: rational cognition is operated by dialectical understanding of conceptional transformations, as Hegel takes it; spiritual cognition transcends this level by entering the dimension of Shunyata. According to Nagarjuna there are two levels of truth: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The first is recognized by the rational operations of mind which have, on this level, a mind-expanding function; the second is recognized by transcending the categories of mind which are, on this level, restricting true knowledge. Najarjuna emphasizes the constructive value of conventional truth for teaching the ultimate truth, see quote below. However, if conventional truth is hold to be ultimate truth, things go wrong.

So we have at least four levels of knowledge:

(1) The level of opposition of subject and recognizable object (everyday consciousness)

(2) The level of opposition of subject and non-recognizable object (Kantian consciousness)

(3) The level of dialectical unity of subject and object (Hegelian consciousness)

(4) The level of non-existence of subject and object (Mahayana and Zen Buddhism consciousness)

Nagarjuna in ´Mūlamadhyamakakārikā´:



The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.

Hegel in ´Phenomenology of Spirit´:



Raised above perception, consciousness exhibits itself closed in a unity with the supersensible world through the mediating term of appearance, though which it gazes into this background (lying behind appearance). The two extremes (of this syllogism), the one, of the pure inner world, the other, that of the inner being gazing into this pure inner world, have now coincided, and just as they, qua extremes, have vanished, so too the middle term, as something other than these extremes, has also vanished. This curtain (of appearance) hanging before the inner world is therefore drawn away, and we have the inner being (the ‘I’) gazing into the inner world - the vision of undifferentiated selfsame being, which repels itself from itself, posits itself as an inner being containing different moments, but for which equally these moments are immediately not different - self-consciousness.

My philosophical favorit Ken Wilber writes on this issue:

http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptG_KOSMOS_2004.pdf

[YesNo]

I haven't finished reading the Wilbur text you cited, but I don't normally think "emergence" is a correct approach to increased complexity in systems. For example Wilber writes, page 3, "...when life...emerges 'out of' matter...". The need to quote the "out of" implies that the concept of emergence is not clear, but the metaphor is that life can be reduced to matter even when that is denied.

I don't think there is any emergence or supervenience going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience

Also, I haven't read Hegel. The "dialectical" appears to be a way to allow change to occur and this needs explanation. The change is neither random nor deterministic although from an aggregate perspective it may appear to be so. That would be one source of the illusion. I think that evolutionary change occurs in non-random, self-affine fractals like Elliott Waves in market analysis rather than Mandelbrot's random fractals.

I'll read more of the Wilber article. I think you have referenced him in the past. I just wanted to post an initial reaction.

Edit: After reading more of the Wilber article, he appears to describe reality as a top-down process. I view emergence as a bottom-up process. Matter is exterior to the interior spirit. I could then interpret matter as an ephiphenomenon of spirit or as an emergent property of spirit. That would fit my monistic perspective.

[YesNo]

I've looked a little more into Ken Wilber's writings and also his site http://www.kenwilber.com/home/landing/index.html

I am not sure what his message is. So far it seems vague. Part of my problem is I don't trust modern thinking that references science whether that comes from materialists or New Age spiritualists. If he cited more research to support his theory, I would be more receptive to it.

[Alvin Pepler]

"As the progress of mathematical and experimental sciences accelerates, so too does the decay of subjectivity, the dissolution of the self, the disappearance of consciousness into the unconscious, and in short, of the 'ego cogitans' into the dark jungle of neurophysiology."-Stanley Rosen

Philosophy is now more alive than ever. Science can not answer the particular questions that man needs to ask.

[YesNo]

I agree with you, Alvin. There is no way to avoid philosophy. People do it without realizing they are doing it.

I also like your quote of Stanley Rosen.

As soon as one uses a mathematical model one makes two philosophic assumptions:

(1) What one is modeling can be reduced to points.
(2) Those points are individuated.

Doing this leads to practical benefits in some restricted contexts and the technology we use today is proof of it. This success leads to an metaphysical belief that EVERYTHING including consciousness can be modeled by reducing it to individuated, unconscious points. That is a generalization that is not warranted by either reason or empirical science. It is a belief.

[Alvin Pepler]

YesNo,

The difficulty I see with "Philosophy" taking place "where it should", academia&communal places, is that "the objective" has become "the subjective". Now that morality is done away with in the public arena and has become "subjective" , "The objective" mathematics is "the subjective" when mathematics is really nothing more than a model or "the objective" that allows "the subjective" to communicate, understand, and be cognitive. Mathematics(political as well) is neither the definitive objective or subjective, but it has become so.

Alvin Peplar aka Mike

[YesNo]

I think I agree with you about mathematics.

Mathematics is way to construct a model that allows us to make predictions. This means that our models will be deterministic. When the predictions more or less come true this makes people think that reality IS the model, that is, reality is some mixture of determinism or unconscious randomness. When that happens subjectivity becomes unreal in spite of the fact that subjectivity is the only thing we can know. Unconscious objective reality, like a text or a computer running a program, knows nothing. This leads to a belief that we do not make any kind of choice because that would imply something new enters the model or "system" coming from an agent that is not the result of either determinism or randomness.

Anyway that is how I see the relationship of mathematics to our subjectivity.

[Alvin Pepler]

YesNo,

Well phrased. This is why I think all the A.I. debates are a bunch of mularkey. Your post speaks the same goes for "values"(now Ideology")...

Mike

[YesNo]

I don't think artificial intelligence will ever generate consciousness. It is mularkey, as you mention, however, these machines are useful for performing a lot of tasks we shouldn't be doing ourselves such as going to Mars or the Moon or exploring space.

The reason I don't think they will become conscious is based on a definition of what consciousness is. I think consciousness requires the ability to make a "choice" that is not based on a deterministic/random optimization and it is not totally individualistic. It is more likely that an electron is conscious in some way than a table or a computer, as a table or computer, is. Also we can't objectify our subjectivity. That was tried with Principia Mathematica in the earth 20th century and Godel showed it would not work for arithmetic. Also Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment raises doubts that functional mimicking equals subjective awareness.

I do like discussing these topics. What are you reading related to philosophical issues? Another book I am in the middle of is David Sloan Wilson's "Does Altruism Exist?" He is a biologist, but the questions he raises are philosophical. He would say that altruism does exist in contrast to selfish gene individualism if I understand him correctly. His perspective is similar to Haidt's.

[Alvin Pepler]

YesNo,

Consciousness is something humans can hardly understand, so there can no way possible for it to be recreated. Like the old Hermit simply puts it in "Blood Meridian": "A man's at odds to know his mind cause is aught he has to know it with".

I don't read too much on the topic of "consciousness", primarily I read Metaphysics. Recently, I've been reading Donald Philip Verene's titles. Wow. He has me reading some Whitehead, a little, not much; then Ernst Cassirer of late. However, this past weekend I was reading last few published stories by Tolstoy. "Hadji Murad" still has me contemplating. What an amazing piece, it is on par with Conrad's "HOD". The last few Tolstoy publications contemplate "death": you can't be that for tackling main issues of philosophy. Alot of Phaedo directly inspiring later Tolstoy. Phaedo was the first piece by Plato to grab me. So, Tolstoy's writing on death are pretty awesome.

Alvin Peplar aka Mike

[YesNo]

I see Verene's "The History of Philosophy" in a local library. I'll check it out today. I agree with the Phaedo that the soul is immortal.

Some of the problems with consciousness comes from confusing it with our individual awareness which is filtered through our bodies and can be modified by doing things to the body, like opening our eyes in the morning or drinking coffee, which makes one suspect that consciousness is nothing but this awareness.

I finished reading as much as I want at the moment of David Sloan Wilson's "Does Altruism Exist?" I also read Peter Singer's "The Most Good You Can Do". I plan to reread Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". These three books are all about morality.

I learnt from Wilson that the word "altruism" goes back to August Comte's efforts to create an atheistic moral community. Altruism is not a traditional religious idea. A religious idea of benevolence involves a win-win situation if one breaks it down into an individual and the group the individual is part of. Altruism implies a potential loss for the individual but a win for the group. This view of a group implies a reductionist ability to view the group as a collection of individuals. The group, in this view, is nothing more than the sum of its individual parts, like a line is the sum of its individual points. I think that can be rejected philosophically, but I wonder if it can be rejected through scientific measurements as well. These people have rejected selfishness (win-lose) for the (individual-group) as the only selection mechanism in Darwinian evolution. I wonder if one can reject their multi-level selection process which includes altruism (lose-win) as well and move toward a pure group centered (win-win) selection process. I suspect this would bring goal-oriented or teleological causes back into science, something I think Thomas Nagel wanted to do with his panpsychism.

[desiresjab]

Since no one can satisfactorily define consciousness, no one could presently create it. The definition may come which allows us to strain it through something artificial. But I do not want to slog that ground again. I know where people stand.

My belief employs abstract consciousness as the original potential, when nothing else may have existed. It is pure and does not need to be broken down into further constituents, like such contrivances as meta-things would have to be. Consciousness generates properties, which are not themselves constituents that make it up, but add-ons.

Another property of at least two forms of consciousness is imagination. We have it, and the original consciousness had to have it, also, to make everything else. The original consciousness holds the universe (everything might be a better description) fully in its imagination, like a light bulb that is turned on, and that we can conceive of being suddenly turned off, whether that is actually possible.

I can continue writing the long word consciousness, or I can write the short one God most of the time, with the understanding that my definition differs from the traditional meaning somewhat, without getting into those exact details immediately. I will do neither. I will write Orc instead, to designate Original Consciousness.

We have all heard the statement The characters came alive. In our case the characters came alive enough to believe they were alive and real. We are only as real as characters in Orc's work of fiction, perhaps not its only opus, either. Orc would require a large playground as I see it, making it difficult to envision myself as the first or the most advanced of his characters, given that Orc has been at it for an eternity already.

Our own fiction mimics Orc's. Though our results are puny, it is our assignment.

I also assume that all of us at one time or another have been so enthralled by a piece of fiction, a movie, a television series, a novel, a play... that we wished we could become part of it for real--like happened with the painting in the Twilight Zone episode.

For an afterlife we may get what we have created, or someone else has, or perhaps what Orc has imagined again. The reality of afterlife would have to be held poised in Orc's imagination, as well, just like our so called physical universe. Orc did all we see and feel and think, before us, so I suspect Orc was up to the job of imagining an afterlife for us, if that is not strictly our own task to complete.

Consciousness cannot be killed, but its house can be burned to the ground. Our brains did not create consciousness but allowed some through. The brain's form matters. We allow through more than mosquitoes do.

Therefore the question of artificial intelligence has been formed wrong for the purposes of philosophy. You cannot create what is already there. But you might just be able to construct a form which allows some consciousness through. Forms are not sacred. Orc found millions of forms that work right here on earth, and we might too. If anything is sacred, then consciousness is, not the form which allows it through, which is just a tool.

Consciousness as an add-on to a programmed machine is reverse engineering, and may be a scientific dead end. The form which finally allows some of Orc through may be organic in nature, though fully constructed by man. An organic brain constructed by us which is not human and sits in its case obviously conscious because it can communicate with us, is not so far fetched. Perhaps we only need to learn the rules for letting a proper brain assemble itself.

[YesNo]

I agree with this: "Our brains did not create consciousness but allowed some through. The brain's form matters. We allow through more than mosquitoes do." We can already create forms that allow Orc through. They are called children.

I also agree with this: "Therefore the question of artificial intelligence has been formed wrong for the purposes of philosophy. You cannot create what is already there. But you might just be able to construct a form which allows some consciousness through." Again we already do this through children.

I also agree with this: "Since no one can satisfactorily define consciousness, no one could presently create it." If we were able to define consciousness completely, that definition would be both the form AND consciousness. Then consciousness would be reduced to a form. One could then say that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the supposedly unconscious form. The subjective would have been objectified in a definition, a text. Subjectivity would not just be described by the text as a story might so that some other subjectivity can experience it, but that text would experience itself even though it is unconscious and cannot experience anything. That contradiction of an unconscious text being conscious of itself is why, I think, AI is impossible. The best AI will attain is a functional simulation of behaviors observed by conscious reality. And that is all we need to use these AI machines to explore reality about us.

One can also ask if the forms are themselves unconscious? Are neurons unconscious as neurons? Are atoms unconscious as atoms? I don't think any of these are unconscious in themselves, however, the things that we make using them such as a desk is unconscious as a desk; a computer is unconscious as a computer. The atoms making up the desk or computer may be conscious as atoms. This flips things around: any unconsciousness we run into in reality is an epiphenomenon of underlying consciousness.

[desiresjab]

Babies do not count in the race for artificial intelligence. Our involvement is too minute. We pull one lever at the start.

It could easily happen that we first find another's artificial creation during our galactic explorations, before we figure consciousness out for ourselves.

The hard-to-accept concept is that we ourselves are artificial, unless our existence is the product of random forces. Creation implies will. The volcano created havoc, is language at work increasing its expressive range, not evidence for a willful volcano. Even though we are artificial, we and our babies do not count.

Though we might never learn an independent magic trick for creating intelligence, the ability to enhance and increase it without limit in already sentient beings might be much easier and within our grasp. Of course we already have such a trick called education. We would need new modes of education, once our creation was smarter than us. It is hard not to envision it at some point taking over our education and becoming the educator.

Starting with a machine and reverse engineering through add-ons might only get asymptotically close to consciousness without achieving it. At a certain point we would have no more valid tests to determine if it was conscious. Our machines could edge so close to consciousness that we could no longer tell the difference between their consciousness or unconsciousness. We can get closer and closer to pi by adding new decimal places and filling them in. Not that many places are required for accuracy in most types of computations. We may never reach pi, but we can get infinitesimally close by filling in enough decimal places. At a certain point we are no longer able to tell the difference.

[YesNo]

Computers are already better at reasoning than we are, but they aren't conscious. They can also do things we can't do, but they aren't conscious. The main test of consciousness, for me, is the ability to make a real choice. Machines can't do this because they are programmed. We know they have programming because we put it there. Some people try to solve the AI problem by saying that we don't make choices either. They claim that everything we do is determined by something prior or is the result of a uniformly random, that is, unconscious, process. But proving that is difficult because "everything" is not easy to control in a proof or experiment and those promoting free will need only show that we can make one, even a tiny, choice to defeat the argument.

Perhaps one way to make progress is to find a way to describe unconsciousness. Again, I would go back to the idea of making a choice and claim--that is, define--unconsciousness as what can completely be explained through deterministic or uniformly random processes. A computer would fit this definition of unconsciousness. So would a table as a table. An electron, however, would not be unconscious by this definition given quantum indeterminism. This is why quantum physics provides a justification for idealism rather than materialism and it is why materialists are pushed into a corner forcing them to look to non-empirical solutions such as "many worlds" as a way to preserve their philosophic position.

I do think we can use unconscious technology to enhance our conscious living experiences. For example, listening to binaural beats (a form of unconsciousness since bits on a computer are not conscious as bits) may improve our minds if we listen to them long enough perhaps like meditation or hypnosis or even sleeping does. You can find some of this by searching for it on YouTube.

[YesNo]

I can't edit posts, so I will add this. When you write, desiresjab, "The volcano created havoc, is language at work increasing its expressive range, not evidence for a willful volcano." I think you are saying something similar to what I am saying. The volcano needs to make a choice, needs to be "willful", as a volcano for it to be conscious. I agree. Being able to make a choice, being willful, is the criteria for consciousness and the inability to be willful is the criteria for unconsciousness.

[desiresjab]

Yes, willfulness is one more property of consciousness. Whether these properties came one at a time and later, is not known, or whether they existed forever right along with consciousness. If they did come along, that means consciousness had already existed forever without its properties, which seems rather unlikely. In that case, all the properties of consciousness were always with it, whether things themselves had a beginning or not. I have most success with the scenario where at least consciousness always existed. Everything else existing forever creates problems for the thinking.

[YesNo]

I think willfulness is a way to show that some reality is actually conscious. That reality is then an "agent" in some more or less limited sense. I think specific forms of "awareness" such as our human awareness is what gets added onto agents and that limits consciousness. So rather than the Turing Test to show evidence of consciousness, one needs to show willfulness that cannot be reduced to a determinisitc/random process.

On a separate topic, I started reading Luc Ferry's "A Brief History of Thought". This is a survey of philosophy from an atheistic perspective. What I find interesting is how he uses the concept of "rational". I think it could be argued that we were in an Age of the Rational from say the mid 17th century to the late 20th century (and perhaps up to the present in some contexts such as the US stock market). What we are in now is a correction to that which might last an additional 30 to 70 years. If that is the case then Ferry would be an old school thinker still in this Age of the Rational social mood. At least that is how I am reading the book.