Let robots be \"babies\" first... (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, January 31, 2011, 11:32 (4841 days ago) @ xeno6696

The exchange between Matt and David (28 Jan. at 23.35 and 29 Jan. at 02.16) is such a pleasant and informative one that I'd like to join in if I may. We probably ought to put it on the epistemology thread, but since we're using that for definitions and general principles, let's stay here. I just want to make two comments, starting with Matt's conclusion:-MATT (to David): Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.-You've summed up the whole purpose of this forum, and it's thanks to contributors like David and yourself that I for one have had my horizons expanded way beyond expectations. Thank you. However, in the same spirit, let me pursue one of the differences.-MATT: Adler was philosophically misguided; the goal of philosophy is a search for truth yes--however you cannot take a position of truth based on reason alone. Inference however nicely dressed up it is, isn't knowledge, and also isn't truth. It's an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be! The same reason I don't say "God doesn't exist" is the same reason I don't say "God exists." [...] We're trained (and we experience) that our intuitions as humans are too linear to be trusted for complex questions. Have a problem? It's the data. Not the data? It's the logic. Nothing can be ambiguous. If your problem is ambiguous, you can't engineer a solution, as simple as that.-What approach can we adopt, then, if there is no definitive solution? I presume you're suggesting, not that we should stop discussing God's possible existence or the origin of life and the universe or the nature of consciousness, but only that we should not take a decision. And this is where perspectives come in. Since we've agreed that science can't provide "truth" either ... only knowledge ... your attack on Adler applies to all such contexts. The moment anyone, including a scientist, draws a conclusion from their findings/experiments/ knowledge/ reasoning/intuition, they're doing no more than offer "an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be". In these contexts, you and I do refuse to take a decision, but there's a major difference between us. You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? (I'm thinking of love, empathy, aesthetic pleasures, reason, imagination, and so on.) Is it not possible that these and all the intuitions you've been taught not to trust reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism? Unless you have faith that scientific materialism has all the answers in store for us (which means you've already decided that there's nothing beyond the material world as we know it), why not ... in these contexts of unknowable truths ... keep an open mind? Your answer appears to be that this is due to your training. If you can't remove the blinkers of your training, might you not be denying yourself the opportunity of gaining a different perspective?