On the value of dialogue between Science and Philosophy
Martin Ciupa
AI Entrepreneur. Keynote Speaker, Interests in: AI/Cybernetics, Physics, Consciousness Studies/Neuroscience, Philosophy: Ethics/Ontology/Maths/Science. Poetry, Life and Love.
Ludwig Wittgenstein had at least two “thought streams” in his life. The first was argued in “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. That was close to the Vienna School of Verificationism. An early period.
In later life, he fell out with this thinking in that the statement (strangely still invoked by many who don’t realize it has failed) that “only that which can be verified is true or meaningful” as a statement can not be verified true or meaningful, thus it is false or meaningless. It self-annihilates as logic.
The school of Logical Positivism based on Verificationism has disappeared mostly.
Let’s take the definition of Scientism…
“Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values”
Note: like the self-annihilating nature of Verificationism mentioned above, this definition of “best or only objective” means of determination of subjective values clearly fails. Wittgenstein was equally dismissive of it. Despite this, Scientism still is part of the thinking of those dismissive of Philosophy. A philosophical position of the non philosophically inclined.
Note: to avoid this self-annihilating nature of Scientism there’s a tendency to obscure the position, by redefining the expression to support scientific thinking over magical thinking. But that position should be proper to criticism of positions related to “Mysterianism” or “Eliminative Materialism”, eg., that consciousness (or other ontological propositions) can not be scientifically studied because they are either beyond our capability to, or they simply don’t exist. This is like saying a thing that is not Scientifically addressable is not Physical, and thus Metaphysical, and thus can be dismissed. But that’s a Metaphysical position, to assert Physical Reductionism, so it again self-annihilates. Trying to sweep under the carpet inconvenient problems doesn’t solve them.
领英推荐
Wittgenstein completed later on “Philosophical Investigations”. And this in part discussed “word games” and that often they’d be incommensurable (rendering the discussion pointless). You can sense such games are being played by proponents of Scientism I suggest.
The argument goes … if you are ignorant of the point a person is making, by way of the meaning of their use of words/concepts, and the other party is similarly indisposed to your meaning then you are “talking past each other”. The solution is to be more intellectually charitable with your interlocutor and define mutually your language terms.
So with this philosophical point accepted in a discussion eg., on the role of “conscious mind” between an AI engineer, Neuroscientist, Physicist and Philosopher might take positions, but would try to explain them in the language of their partners. And that takes respectful and careful dialogue. And a willingness to have your assumptions challenged. Humans tend to bristle sometimes when so asked to play nicely together. But they must learn.
An example see the image, is it a rabbit or a duck? There really is no need for a fight!
On issues about AI say in reasoning for a transdisciplinary team to discuss the meaning of AI. It’s good to discuss “what is artifice?, “what is intelligence?“, and, “Do we really mean ‘Alternative Intelligence’?”
See my recent post on this… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159879204848599/
PS: To argue against these positions is fine if you feel you must. But note you are going to be arguing philosophically. And it’s a weak position to start from if you think philosophy is dead. Why fight philosophy (a word meaning Love of wisdom), do you think philosophy is your enemy just because it asks you to explain your unreflected assumptions? That is misosophy, ie., Hatred of wisdom. And who needs that kind of pointless intellectual war?
"On issues about AI say in reasoning for a transdisciplinary team to discuss the meaning of AI. It’s good to discuss “what is artifice?, “what is intelligence?“, and, “Do we really mean ‘Alternative Intelligence’?”" It would be a great starting point indeed ?? But what I see with sadness reminds me of what Carnap, one of the greatest philosophers of the past century, and one of the founders of the Vienna Circle & Logical Positivism, wrote:?"If one is interested in the relations between fields which, according to customary academic divisions, belong to different departments, then he will not be welcomed as a builder of bridges, as he might have expected, but will rather be regarded by both sides as an outsider and troublesome intruder." We need builders of bridge.
AI Consultant || MIT Alumni || Entrepreneur || Open Source Project Owner || Blogger
2 年Excellent
Founder & CEO @ Tipalo - COGNITIVE EDGE AI acting in real-time will usher in a new era of philosophy, logical thinking & space technology
2 年In 1939 he wrote: "People today believe that the scientists are there to teach them, the poets and musicians etc. to please them. That these have something to teach them does not occur to them." Philosophy tries to explain, how our minds work. A science is a specific view about parts of the world, as words, rules and description. But there are many views of the world, all delivered by someone with a mind, using science or simply his own views. So, before arguing the one particular science is above others, we should note that any science can only by explained by philosophy. There is only one thing we all agree on, and that is that we agree on nothing. The only exception is that we agree on everything when there is a threat to all of us, such as a common enemy or extinction. So, since AI will become a part of the world, it will be interesting to see how we will behave when we see AI as our "spiritual descendants" or as a threat.