> In the same way my digital thermometer doesn't have quaila
And I repeat the question: how do you know your thermometer doesn't? You don't, you're just declaring a fact you have no basis for knowing. That's fine if you want a job in a philosophy faculty, but it's worthless to people trying to understand AI. Again, c.f. furffle. Thermometers have that, you agree, right? Because you can't prove they don't.
You're just describing panpsychism, which itself is the subject of much critique due to its nonfalsifiability and lack of predictive power. Not to mention it ignores every lesson we've learned in cognition thus far.
A thermometer encoding "memory" of a temperature is completely different than a thermometer on a digital circuit, or a thermometer attached to a fully-developed mammalian brain. Only the latter of this set for sure has the required circuitry to produce qualia, at least as far as I can personally measure without invoking solipsism.
It's also very silly to proclaim that philosophy of mind is not applicable to increasingly complex thinking machines. That sounds like a failure to consider the bodies of work behind both philosophy of mind and machine cognition. Again, "AI" is ill-defined and your consistent usage of that phrase instead of something more precises suggests you still have a long journey ahead of you for "understanding AI".
God, can we fucking quit with this "philosophy is bullshit" stuff. Like there are literally Faculty in Philosophy all over the world trying to understand AI. Philosophy faculty do stuff, they try to understand things, most of the ideas we are talking about here came from philosophers.
Philosophy seems a term generally reserved for the stuff we don't understand yet and so is inherently kind of speculative. Once you have a definite answer it gets called science instead.
> Philosophy (from Ancient Greek philosophía lit. 'love of wisdom') is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, knowledge, mind, reason, language, and value. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its methods and assumptions.
It is literally a self-reflective science.
I recommend taking a basic philosophical course at a local community college, or reading some literature or even watching YouTube videos on the subject of philosophy. Or just skim the Wikipedia article if nothing else. It might completely transform how you perceive and act upon the world.
>Physics was originally part of philosophy, like Isaac Newton's observation of how gravity affects falling apples.
like back then people would wonder how apples fall and it was labeled philosophy. Now we understand gravitation it's part of physics for the most part. People launching satellites seldom call a philosopher to calculate the orbit.
It remains to be seen if qualia, which we don't understand very well and are so regarded as philosophical, make the transition to neuroscience.
The fact that we have sharpened our classification of sciences over time does not imply that philosophy is a study of the ill-defined. It implies the opposite: Philosophy is more precisely defined now than ever.
If you read the rest of the article, you will see clear examples of what is considered a philosophical problem and what isn't.
My argument was more philosophy is for stuff we don't understand like how do qualia work, rather then ill-defined. When you get to stuff like how does neurotransmission work which we do kind of understand it gets classed as science.
Are there philosophical problems that have definite answers like what is the atomic number of oxygen type answers?
> Are there philosophical problems that have definite answers
Great question.
Within philosophical and epistemological frameworks, I could ask questions such as, "Can there be a square circle?"
Well, no, these two concepts have conflicting properties. A mathematician might think this a solved problem, but philosophy underpins our concept of concepts. Many philosophers spend a great deal arguing what is is.
For Plato, geometrical entities like circles and squares have distinct, perfect Forms. Forms have fixed essences, so a thing cannot participate in contradictory Forms at once.
Aristotle's law of noncontradiction says the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.
Theophrastus developed hypothetical syllogisms and refined Aristotle’s logic by distinguishing logical impossibilities from physical impossibilities.
Kant calls it an analytic contradiction, false by virtue of the concepts involved.
A mathematician takes these things for granted when working with equalities, logic and axioms, but they stand on philosophical roots. Mathematics assumes the consistency of concepts, but the question of why some concepts are consistent while others are impossible is a philosophical one. It's not a coincidence that so many ancient Greek mathematicians were also philosophers.
> Philosophy seems a term generally reserved for the stuff we don't understand yet and so is inherently kind of speculative. Once you have a definite answer it gets called science instead.
As someone has commented earlier, Philosophy applied is given a name but it's a sub-discipline of Philosophy.
> Understanding the world through experiment?
That's a decent enough definition. Science precludes so much of the world we know which I think people really fail to realise. It's why I think it's important for people to understand what Philosophy is and what Science isn't.
For example logic isn't science. Science presupposes it but it is NOT science. There are many such examples.
How do you know that understanding the world through experiment works? How do you know what it even means? What is understanding, concretely? How did we come to appreciate the utility or whatever of understanding the world through experiment.
Empiricism is a sub-strategy under the general banner of philosophy. It neither supercedes nor stands without philosophy.
> Like there are literally Faculty in Philosophy all over the world trying to understand AI.
There surely are. The problem is that they are failing. While the practical nerds are coming up with some pretty good ideas.
And this was what philosophy was supposed to be for! Like, they've been arguing on their pins for centuries about the essence of consciousness and the uniqueness of the human condition and whatnot. AND HERE WE ARE AT THE DAWN OF NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND THEY HAVE NOTHING USEFUL TO SAY.
Basically at what point do we just pack it in and admit we all fucked up?
Blame philosophy as a field for actively kicking out anything which gains a practical application. If it is propaganda it is coming from inside the house of philosophy.
I had a computer science professor who had degrees in philosophy because he was old enough that computer science didn't exist as a major at the time. The logical arguments of philosophy proved useful for understanding interactions of boolean mathematics. Yet that triumph of philosophy didn't further interest in the field or gain prestiege among philosophers. Just the opposite really.
As far as I can tell it is for dumb reasons possibly related to Ancient Greeks and their obsession with 'purity of thought (read: not referencing reality) it is practically an axiom that if it is useful or grounded in objective reality it isn't treated as philosophy anymore. All likely stemming from motivated reasoning against checking their priors and from frankly many of the Ancient philosophers being influenced by a need to flatter their patrons who held the practical in disdain. As notoriously seen in Aristotlian physics with impetus physics where projectiles keep moving in the same direction until impetus is depleted and then fall.
Speculation of the origon of the pathology aside, there seems to be this deep-seated antiempericalism in philosophy. Which means at best you get 'philosophy of science' which isn't proper philosophy because it pollutes itself by daring to use reality and experimentation as benchmarks for theories. When philosophy gains a practical usage it doesn't become something called 'practical philosophy' and the focus of more interest by philosophers, it gets shunned. Natural philosophy didn't remain philosophy - it became science.
To be fair there is probably some interaction driving the divorce from the opposite direction, of the practical portions of philosophy being pilfered by those only looking for results as opposed to some sort of unquantifiable enlightenment.
Science is of course a process of refinement of ideas against the reference point of reality. Anything mathematically consistent can be a model but experimentation is needed to see how well your model corresponds to reality.
I'm seeing this attitude everywhere in this subthread, and it's frankly pretty offensive. The burden of proof is on you, not us. If a philosophy paper or textbook has an important contribution to this discussion then cite it! Or better link it, or even make an attempt at explaining it.
That's what the science people do. People who show up with questions get answers, or at least an attempt at an answer. No one tries to handwave away a discussion on power switching applications with "Well, see, this involves a MOSFET which isn't something we can actually explain but which you need to just believe in anyway because there are people who wrote textbooks about it". No, you link a StackExchange question or a electronics video on YouTube or whatnot.
The fundamental disconnect here is that you guys are saying: "Qualia are critically important and AI doesn't have them", to which we're responding "Qualia seem like complete bullshit and don't seem to mean anything". This is the point where you SHOULD try to explain them, or link an explanation that has some kind of relevance.
But instead you recursively cycle back to "No no, they're not bullshit, because Qualia are critically important per all of the philosophy papers and textbooks I'm not citing".
There is neither a burden of proof nor an us or them in this discussion. That isn't how inquiry works, in general. I'm not saying qualia are critically important, though perhaps other people are saying that, I don't know. The point is that qualia per se is just an idea which describes a certain character of physical experience. It isn't an "ideology". It is just a philosophical notion which most people find difficult to totally dismiss.
I genuinely don't get where you are coming from. There is a set of people who dedicate their lives to thinking about stuff and many of them believe there is something about actual experience which is not adequately captured by a purely physical description.
Read the SEP Entry on Qualia if you'd like to get a grounding on it:
I think what you will notice is that philosophers are neither monolithic nor dogmatic on the subject and yet, being intellectually honest and thorough, most neither dismiss it totally or believe in its adequacy as a description.
If you don't think the question of whether AI has or does not have qualia is important I don't know what to tell you. My personal sense is that AIs of the type we have now have no qualia but I am prepared to entertain the idea that they might.
If you want a good text about this try Koch's the Quest for Consciousness. Despite your certainty about qualia and its relation to science, there are genuine observational things we can say about it and how it relates to the physical structure of brains/minds.
On the subject of qualia per se and philosophy's relationship to the physical sciences I can suggest reading about Phenomenology:
The essential idea of import here is that, whether you like it or not, you as an individual have nothing at all, at a fundamental level, other than your perceptions of the world. You must then have an account of how you proceed from such to even basic ideas like empiricism or other sorts of epistemological strategies. Imperfect, perhaps even vague, as the notion of qualia is, it (or something like it) is, fundamentally, the foundation upon which all other sorts of inquiry into the physical world depends.
Unfortunately, sometimes you have to educate yourself on a subject before making arrogant, accusational claims about it. You can't expect people to patiently hold your hand and drip feed you compact knowledge while you spit in their face.
This is especially true of a field such as philosophy, where so much work is built upon earlier, historical work. You just have to do the work of reading the texts or at least reading about them, if you want to participate meaningfully and authoritatively in discussions.
You're speaking authoritatively, but multiple people have tried to correct you and you ignore and challenge all of them, instead of just absorbing what they have to say. Several people have tried to help you understand, and you're complaining that they aren't doing that. Articles have been linked, and specific individuals have been cited. The burden is on you. You arrived and said an entire branch of philosophy was fraudulant, and you have failed to support your initial claim, instead resorting to outbursts.
> Qualia are critically important and AI doesn't have them
No one is saying that. It's a straw man on your behalf.
And I repeat the question: how do you know your thermometer doesn't? You don't, you're just declaring a fact you have no basis for knowing. That's fine if you want a job in a philosophy faculty, but it's worthless to people trying to understand AI. Again, c.f. furffle. Thermometers have that, you agree, right? Because you can't prove they don't.