From: zeb haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 14:44:33 MST
>From: "Steve Nichols" <steve@multisell.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:06:19 -0000
>
>Didn't Russell and Whitehead show that 'logic' supplied the
>rules underlying both mathematics and language in Principia
>Mathematica ... maths is purely logically, and cannot be
>"proven by science empirically."
How do you know?
If you want to resist philosophy, then stop thinking about that question
right now, you'd need philosophical concepts to answer it.
Isn't logic a subset of philosophy? It was in the philosophy department at
my college. I'm sure you know Russell was an academic philosopher.
Philosophy suffers the same problem AI does. Once you solve the problem,
it's not considered philosophy anymore. Philosophy is the fertilizer, the
brainstorming room. The best results from there (and it takes a sometimes
millenia to get them) are then passed on to the appropriate department. You
might be surprised to find that Descartes ("I think therefore I am" is what
he's most famous for) wrote extensively on meteorology, mechanics,
physiology, etc. Aristotle wrote extensively on biology, Plato on
government. The first debates about atoms were held among philosophers in
Ancient Greece. Pythagora (spelling?), who discovered the Pythagorian
theorem and many other facts about numbers, had a cult of philosophy
students whose behavior was in some respects more bizzare then the Heaven's
Gate castration comet suicide cult. Newton was considered a philosopher who
solved the greatest philosophical problem of his time, the motion of the
planets. The reason that the field of philosophy has narrowed so much over
the past few thousands of years is that it has been so successful. It's
solved so many of its problems that they can now be dealt with by
non-philosophers.
...
>
>No, see above, mathematics IS a subset of logic.
Which is a subset of philosophy.
>
> >It seems to me that all theory is philosophy, and the scientific
> >method converts theory (possible fantasy) into fact (provable
> >reality).
>
>You are stretching the term "philosophy" to a ludicrous extent.
When you think "philosophy", think "pre-natal science".
>
>A question for you defenders of academic philosopher: name
>just one (real world, useful) problem solved by philosophy in
>the past 100 years? Or name a single theory universally agreed
>by academic philosophers?
>
Are you suggesting that universal agreement is equivalent to truth? It's
not. There are a number of problems I consider "solved" which are not agreed
upon at all. For example, the question of the purpose of life, the question
of whether God exists, and the question of what is the value of truth.
But, for philosophy problems solved with general agreement in the past 100
years, Quantum and Atomic Physics answered (partially) questions asked
thousands of years ago by Atomism. Calculus (I'm going back a few hundred, I
know) gives the tools to mathematically solve problems about time and motion
posed thousands of years ago by Zeno. Eventually, (some) questions about
consciousness will be answered by the departments already starting to take
it over from philosophy and do empirical research, which is psychology. It
would be pointless to go through the entire list, you could buy books worth.
Almost any mid-level book on science is going to start with a chapter about
the philosophers of Ancient Greece who first posed the problems you're about
to read the solutions to.
You're looking for problems which have been solved to the satisfaction of
experts, but which are still considered philosophical problems, but this is
impossible by the definition of "philosophy", for reaons outlined above.
Once it's put in a way that allows it to be addressed by empirical or
mathematical methods, it's no longer considered philosophy. It can take
thousands of years and thousands of philosophers to reach that point. Would
you criticize the value of Kindergarden by asking "name a single useful book
written by or invention invented by a Kindergardener", well, none while they
were still in Kindergarden.
>And just a quickie on "transhuman" philosophy ... please can
>we drop the P word and just have particular topics ... unless
>we are going to have a fully Posthuman school of philosophy
>that reduces and supersedes the failed human-legacy schools.
>
>I am yet to be convinced that transhuman thought is any more
>than a waiting room for the posthuman world. The convergence
>"singularity" might never happen, so why not get on with establishing
>posthuman society now? Human, conventionalist philosophers have
>failed to engage with the public ... I can think of none who is a
>house-hold name or who has any particular wisdom to convey to
>the common masses ... academic philosophy is turgid and
>unimportant. Or am I missing something?
Yes, the "common masses" are not a gague of anything.
Can you name a single transhumanist who is a household name, who can engage
with the public more then any academic philosopher? Does that mean it's
turgid and unimportant?
Can you name any biochemist who is a household name?
>
>Level Up
>www.steve-nichols.com
>Posthuman Organisation
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------
Zeb Haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
My personal webpage:
http://www.inconnect.com/~zharadon/ubunix
A movie I'm directing:
http://www.elevatormovie.com
"Fish fuck in it." - W. C. Fields answer to why he never drank water.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:32 MST