From: mike99 (mike99@lascruces.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 21:36:19 MDT
Ben, while you are certainly correct in stating that Bunge's philosophy is
rather one-sided, I find it more interesting than, for example, Foucault,
whose historical researches--upon which he based his analysis of human
institutions--have been refuted by people who know more about the periods
and institutions about which he wrote. I'll grant that Foucault did have
considerable first hand-knowledge of human perversity, as evidenced by his
moral obtuseness regarding HIV (i.e., he knew he was infected but continued
to his promiscuous lifestyle nevertheless and without informing his
partners).
Bunge's "naive" realism/objectivism is, as I said, one-sided but, to me, a
needed corrective to the radical subjectivism that has come to dominate in
many academic departments. You wrote that we live in a "mind-created world"
which we must acknowledge along with "some common reality that we all
share." Do you consider this common reality to be a mind-consensus or an
objective reality that exists apart from human observers? (Do we need to
hear that tree fall in order for it to make a noise?)
You wrote:
"Embracing
this Zen koan of subjectivity/objectivity is the real challenge, and will
become even more of a pertinent challenge as virtual reality and
superintelligence-inspired reality transformations completely alter reality
as we know it."
I would distinguish between changes to a virtual reality content (software)
and changes to the underlying substrate (hardware/objective reality). Both
can and will be changed by superintelligence. But I think that any
superintelligence that loses controlling contact over the material substrate
will be superceded by another superintelligence that does not.
Regards,
Mike LaTorra
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sl4@sysopmind.com [mailto:owner-sl4@sysopmind.com]On Behalf
Of Ben Goertzel
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:21 PM
To: sl4@sysopmind.com
Subject: RE: Books on rationality
> Bunge is particularly strong in his formulation of philosophical claims as
> logical propositions, and on his warranted (in my opinion) dismissals of
> most Continental philosophy (from existentialism to
> post-modernism). I also
> found quite valuable his summary of outstanding philosophical
> problems that
> may be amenable to resolution along the lines he sets out in his books.
Not surprisingly, I hold a different view ;)
I find his formulation of philosophical claims in logical terms rather
shallow, and I radically disagree with his dismissal of existentialism and
postmodernism.
The existentialists and proto-existentialists dealt with the issue of how to
think about morality in the absence of a false notion of "objective
reality," far better than anyone else has. I'm thinking of Nietzsche,
Sartre and Camus, primarily.
Baudrillard's book "Simulations" (he's a French postmodernist sociologist)
is the best book on the phenomenology of virtual reality that I know; and
Foucault (often considered a postmodernist), in his books on prisons,
schools, and sexuality for instance, has plunged deeper into the perverse
peculiarity of human nature than just about anyone else.
To me, accepting only philosophy that can be summed up in concise logical
propositions is like, well, trying to encode philosophy in CycL! Just as
the deepest parts of commonsense knowledge cannot be conveniently encoded in
compact logical formulas, so the deepest kinds of philosophy cannot be
conveniently encoded in compact logical formulas.
What is most interesting to me in late 19'th century & 20'th century
philosophy is the attempt to forge a middle way between shallow, naive
rationalism/empiricism (which holds there is a single objective reality, and
a single right answer to every question), and total nihilism (which is the
most common conclusion those who reject the existence of objectivity come
to) -- *without* recourse to superstitious beliefs. This is existentialism,
postmodernism, and other assorted freaks like Mikhail Bakhtin (an amazing
Russian literary critic and philospher, who created a notion of a
"polyphonic" reality that is neither objective nor solipsistic, but
collective).
By putting himself in the "naive objectivist" camp, Bunge makes himself
completely uninteresting to me. Refusing to acknowledge the fact that each
of us lives in our own mind-created world, is just as silly as refusing to
acknowledge that there is some common reality that we all share. Embracing
this Zen koan of subjectivity/objectivity is the real challenge, and will
become even more of a pertinent challenge as virtual reality and
superintelligence-inspired reality transformations completely alter reality
as we know it.
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT