Do we still need philosophy or has science made it somewhat redundant? Let us know what you think in the comments below! To watch the full debate, head over to iai.tv/video/life-the-universe-and-everything-else?TH-cam&+comment
Science only examines certain phenomena that we can measure and describes the behavior of the phenomena as best we can measure it. In between and outside of what we can (or even know to) measure and what it's behavior is there is a Universe of information and analysis that science turns a blind eye to, and this is where philosophy reigns.
A disagreement will ensue for centuries about whether the skin cells of the Egyptian mummy mene can live again with the right electric-chemical processes. Maybe consciousness of her own ownership would then be figured out. Maybe then we could decide how many could link up on a machine to eternal bliss.
This "Universe of information and analysis..." which you mention exists purely as speculation and by necessity is infinite. It is futile to contemplate this.
Personally I think philosophy is still of profound relevance and practical value in today's society. We see many struggles around the world where people have different ideas of fairness and justice (e.g. about human rights and democracy). And the biggest challenges we face in the future (i.e. climate change) will require a great deal of philosophical advancement to get through it (e.g. how do we value the rights of future generations? what of the rights of other species?). A lot of the quality of my own life comes from being able to reflect on its meaning and on what a 'good life' means.
What I feel we need more of is moral philosophy rather than abstract discussions of whether the real is real and other sophist nonsense which should be done with by end of college. The real question is how to interact. How to act. How to react. Are there fundamental principles which can guide us to a better life. To more life? What is important? The @Wolfram physics project points to a moral philosophy based on divergence from natural path. That Will itself, the forcing/arranging/coercing of events to a particular outcome is where the moral question comes in. What events? Whose choice of outcome? What consequences/collateral damage?
I entirely agree to.your.first.para. the great nonsense comes from trying to formulate an overarching theory like in natural sciences If that was possible we won't need social sciences in first place.
Peter Atkins just demonstrated how a smart person can believe in stupid ideas. Where have we simulated any aspect of consciousness other than the appearance of it?
@@enekaitzteixeira7010 Firstly, he said that our brains generate consciousness and that it's a property of matter. Then he talked about machines simulating and emulating consciousness and left this as a rebuttal of the idea that material science ignores subjective, qualitative experience. He thus confirmed that materialists a) believe in stupid ideas (the brain generates consciousness) and b) don’t even understand the problem they claim that materialism will solve.
I think philosophy is a great tool for learning how to think, criticize ideas logically, form ideas of your own, make arguments etc; however, I think science can and will explain some areas of philosophy such as morality and aesthetics. The human DNA for example has boundaries as to the range of moralities that exist but those are dependent upon the external world/environment too; as I like to think, human behaviors are like algorithms: give these genes, this environment and you get this morality (if x, then y). I should also mention that philosophy of science and epistemology is probably for me the most important fields of philosophy; discussing what wrong science is doing at the time and the best way to attain knowledge. Philosophy like Aye's, Quine's, Mach's etc. are for example like that, which also includes ontology too.
science can explain how particular moralities arise or how certain things are beautiful, but they can't explain what ought to be moral or what ought to be beautiful. These are fundamentally different questions. Explaining how morality and beauty arise is outside the scope of philosophy (although many philosophers use historical and scientific evidence to inform their beliefs). Explaining what should be considered moral and what should be considered beautiful is a question that can only be solved using philosophy.
@@sillybobby5189 I agree but the answers to those questions are really close to each other and can 'inform' each other, especially the answers of the first to the answers of the second. Also, does the question 'what should be beautiful' have meaning? It seems to me that only the first respective question about art makes sense and have meaning; the other cannot be answered.
I'm struggling with the arbitrary bifurcation of science and philosophy that is assumed as a pretext for this debate. Yes, Plato, mimesis and the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts in the 1500's that triggered the Renaissance...
Absolutely! Philosophy (love of wisdom) is vital moving forward, and very vital for Science to step-up and discover revolutionary innovations that are essential to advance the human civilization that are good for the people and the environment. It's like asking do we need knowledge moving forward? Definitely, yes! Most of great inventions, innovations, scientific laws and hypothesis were discovered and formulated using Philosophy. Our great Scientists, are first, Philosophers. You need critical thinking (generated by using the different branches of Philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology) to create new knowledge, scientific discoveries, and innovations that are good for the people and the planet. With Science becoming more detached from ethics and spiritual consciousness (these can be generated through Philosophy), the more that our Scientists need Philosophy moving forward toward the future. Currently, Science is not unleashing its true potentials because it is not grounding on Philosophy as an essential guide to where it should be directing forward. Science has lots of things to discover and it needs Philosophy to accomplish it.
That's a paradox. Asking if we still need philosophy is a philosophical question in it's self. Seeing the questions and suggestions that are asked and made lately about philosophy, I definitely think we need to teach more philosophy. Because, you're basically reinventing the weel.
Arguing that science has rendered philosophy redundant is a kind of performative contradiction given that philosophy is the practice of making and assessing arguments.
"We have little things that emulate little parts of consciousness" - Peter Atkins. Really? Are they parts of consciousness, or of our senses? Big difference! Mechanics versus magical mystery
Its a bit cocky of science to say philosphy is not needed when Science itself sprung from the type of thinking that philosiphers engage in. theres no reason to assume that cant happen again where philosophical thinking gives birth to a better science. Im also not sure its best to reduce "Truth" to some collection of emprical facts.
I don't understand why either field collide? they are based on different fundamental ideologies and no need to discredit the one for the other to hold value. What that value might be is measured under each fields parameters and so cannot possibly over lap. The question of measure and science is a philosophical one but the measure within science is a scientific one. My lawnmower has no value when it comes to hovering my living room but it doesn't devalue its place in my lawn.
If we didn't need philosophy, then this discussion wouldn't be happening. Of course, the distinction between the arts, science, philosophy and religion is one of emphasis; methods of enquiry. Essentially, distinctions are arbitrary and are shaped by contemporaneity. As the speakers all know our condition is one of curiosity, so philosophy, definitions of philosophy and the global nature of human enquiry (culture(s)) will be salient as long as we are around. The notion that scientific method is "truth" is problematic and that scientific methods will end in a comprehension of reality, that is definitive is absurd and counters "la condition humaine". For me discussions around these subjects tend to be politicised rather than creative/educative and purposely reflective of the current tropes of the society(ies) that the speakers inhabit. Absorbing approaches from non-Western cultures may allow for a more eclectic and stimulating debate.
The hard problem of consciousness always undermines pure scientism. Peter's take is ridiculous. Science cannot "fully simulate consciousness," because it is using it to do the analysis, you can't isolate it as an independent variable and therefore you cannot evaluate it with the scientific method.
For the scientific method an isolation as an independent variable is not needed. I hear this misconception often. I suspect it comes from an oversimplification taught in some school systems. Isolation as an independent variable is just a good way to get high quality data. But it's not an requirement. Moreover what is commonly understood as the scientific method (which includes testing hypotheses via experiments) is not what all of science relies on. The modern version of the scientific method (statistical learning theory) has no such requirement on being testable in the sense of controlled experiments.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Despite all evidence to the contrary in all education, in any search about the scientific method and its history, you are flippantly claiming that "the scientific method does not require an independent variable." Despite being the one making the extraordinary claim, you then deign to say that I could only think the scientific method requires independent and dependent variables because of a lackluster education. You still grant that having an independent and dependent variable is the ideal, but in some fringe cases of statistical modeling it is not required. Doesn't statistical learning require some known data sets to make hypothesis about unknown data? The hard problem of consciousness remains, as consciousness precedes any data set-- you use consciousness to evaluate the data sets (known or unknown)! Do you think that statistical learning theory could somehow solve the hard problem of consciousness? If so, how? How could it possibly "fully simulate" that which precedes the data you put into the statistical model? If it cannot, then your bringing it up is irrelevant and purely sophistry in defense of scientism.
@@AnHonestDoubter Statistical learning theory contains a proof of what strategies are able to approximate the truth. No isolation of independent variables required.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos I will take that reply as a concession. Good luck 1:1 replicating consciousness via material science with an "approximation of truth." 🤦♂️
@@AnHonestDoubter Seems you're not interested in correcting your or even checking for misconceptions about how science works. If that changes feel free to respond again. Until then I'll leave that discussion.
No we don't. Philosophy is human centric. It isn't a science in any way shape or form. The reason why philosophy exists is beyond the scope of this video
Supp. Human centricism (aka anthropocentrism) is a 'subject' of philosophy. And it's not philosophy in it's entirety. Philosophy developed science, therefore philosophy can never be a subject of science (had these two confused before the edit). Philosophy is always applicable to anything. (See my response to Daubechies wavelets)
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Those educational structures, methodologies and foundations that you are talking about are created by philosophy. History has nothing to do with it. Philosophy is timeless. Philosophy in it's entirety is always overarching every subject and every topic. Even history is philosophy's bit**, said plainly.
@@AVGVSTVS6314 I disagree. How science works at the moment comes from mathematics (statistical learning theory). All the methodology and foundation comes from other scientific disciplines (physics lends chemistry methodologies) and other branches of mathematics (analysis, inference statistics,...). And philosophy is not timeless. It lacks a methodology of approximating the truth. Mathematics has proofs. Science has estimates of predictive power (statistical learning theory). But what has philosophy? So I don't see a reason philosophy should converge in some sense to insights independent of its history.
@@AVGVSTVS6314 no. Philosophy is a human construct. Whereas math and physics are what they are no matter the species. What we ponder or don't understand could be trivial to another species yet outside of our domain. I'm asserting philosophy is a reflection of human kind,not a representation of the human mind or science or facts.
I would say philosophy at the moment is more or less useless. If you disagree, what is the answer to the following question: What non-trivial statement comes from philosophy? I can point to such statements in scientific disciplines I'm not familiar with. But I can't point to something in philosophy.
You can start with finding a non-trivial statement from philosophy in for example Philosophy of law (and than more specific about the subject 'identity' (what's somebody's identity?)). Good luck!
@@firstal3799 I not exactly sure what "big fundamental questions" are for you. But for me these are rare questions which need a lot of evidence or luck (where a theory gives a useful information about it like general relativity). And 20-30 years are not the right time frame for that. It's possible that I misunderstood you. Feel free for example to list examples of questions as week as possible which are big fundamental questions in your opinion.
First five minutes says it all. Phillip Goff all true Peter Aitken ..all false . Be rigorous and take those propositions apart and this will be evident .
Do we still need philosophy or has science made it somewhat redundant? Let us know what you think in the comments below! To watch the full debate, head over to iai.tv/video/life-the-universe-and-everything-else?TH-cam&+comment
it seemed like nobody had any idea what the others was talking about
😆😂
Science only examines certain phenomena that we can measure and describes the behavior of the phenomena as best we can measure it. In between and outside of what we can (or even know to) measure and what it's behavior is there is a Universe of information and analysis that science turns a blind eye to, and this is where philosophy reigns.
Science wouldn’t be blind to it if it weren’t totally destructive to the human to measure their brain contents continuously.
A disagreement will ensue for centuries about whether the skin cells of the Egyptian mummy mene can live again with the right electric-chemical processes. Maybe consciousness of her own ownership would then be figured out. Maybe then we could decide how many could link up on a machine to eternal bliss.
This "Universe of information and analysis..." which you mention exists purely as speculation and by necessity is infinite. It is futile to contemplate this.
@@Fomites Everything we know as fact was once speculation.
Personally I think philosophy is still of profound relevance and practical value in today's society. We see many struggles around the world where people have different ideas of fairness and justice (e.g. about human rights and democracy). And the biggest challenges we face in the future (i.e. climate change) will require a great deal of philosophical advancement to get through it (e.g. how do we value the rights of future generations? what of the rights of other species?). A lot of the quality of my own life comes from being able to reflect on its meaning and on what a 'good life' means.
What I feel we need more of is moral philosophy rather than abstract discussions of whether the real is real and other sophist nonsense which should be done with by end of college.
The real question is how to interact. How to act. How to react. Are there fundamental principles which can guide us to a better life. To more life? What is important?
The @Wolfram physics project points to a moral philosophy based on divergence from natural path. That Will itself, the forcing/arranging/coercing of events to a particular outcome is where the moral question comes in. What events? Whose choice of outcome? What consequences/collateral damage?
I entirely agree to.your.first.para. the great nonsense comes from trying to formulate an overarching theory like in natural sciences
If that was possible we won't need social sciences in first place.
@@firstal3799 i have recently been looking at scalable mapping of thermodynamics on human activity and there are some interesting resonances
Sounds interesting, tell me
Peter Atkins just demonstrated how a smart person can believe in stupid ideas. Where have we simulated any aspect of consciousness other than the appearance of it?
Good points... But where does simulation begin to become actuality?
@@crescentsi I doubt that consciousness could be manufactured. However, on a more general level, actuality is based on belief.
@@neilcreamer8207 That's not what he said.
@@enekaitzteixeira7010 Firstly, he said that our brains generate consciousness and that it's a property of matter. Then he talked about machines simulating and emulating consciousness and left this as a rebuttal of the idea that material science ignores subjective, qualitative experience. He thus confirmed that materialists a) believe in stupid ideas (the brain generates consciousness) and b) don’t even understand the problem they claim that materialism will solve.
the first speaker had some idea of what the discussion was about. The rest, hmmm. You need better participants in such things. Dull.
I think philosophy is a great tool for learning how to think, criticize ideas logically, form ideas of your own, make arguments etc; however, I think science can and will explain some areas of philosophy such as morality and aesthetics. The human DNA for example has boundaries as to the range of moralities that exist but those are dependent upon the external world/environment too; as I like to think, human behaviors are like algorithms: give these genes, this environment and you get this morality (if x, then y). I should also mention that philosophy of science and epistemology is probably for me the most important fields of philosophy; discussing what wrong science is doing at the time and the best way to attain knowledge. Philosophy like Aye's, Quine's, Mach's etc. are for example like that, which also includes ontology too.
science can explain how particular moralities arise or how certain things are beautiful, but they can't explain what ought to be moral or what ought to be beautiful. These are fundamentally different questions. Explaining how morality and beauty arise is outside the scope of philosophy (although many philosophers use historical and scientific evidence to inform their beliefs). Explaining what should be considered moral and what should be considered beautiful is a question that can only be solved using philosophy.
@@sillybobby5189 I agree but the answers to those questions are really close to each other and can 'inform' each other, especially the answers of the first to the answers of the second. Also, does the question 'what should be beautiful' have meaning? It seems to me that only the first respective question about art makes sense and have meaning; the other cannot be answered.
Science is a practical application of a subset of philosophy (empiricism).
I'm struggling with the arbitrary bifurcation of science and philosophy that is assumed as a pretext for this debate. Yes, Plato, mimesis and the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts in the 1500's that triggered the Renaissance...
Absolutely! Philosophy (love of wisdom) is vital moving forward, and very vital for Science to step-up and discover revolutionary innovations that are essential to advance the human civilization that are good for the people and the environment.
It's like asking do we need knowledge moving forward? Definitely, yes! Most of great inventions, innovations, scientific laws and hypothesis were discovered and formulated using Philosophy. Our great Scientists, are first, Philosophers. You need critical thinking (generated by using the different branches of Philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology) to create new knowledge, scientific discoveries, and innovations that are good for the people and the planet. With Science becoming more detached from ethics and spiritual consciousness (these can be generated through Philosophy), the more that our Scientists need Philosophy moving forward toward the future. Currently, Science is not unleashing its true potentials because it is not grounding on Philosophy as an essential guide to where it should be directing forward. Science has lots of things to discover and it needs Philosophy to accomplish it.
Peter Atkins crushed this debate, but scientists indeed should take philosophy seriously.
Ms. Taylor said very little of meaning
No he didn't at all ,he speculated like an ignoramus on steroids.
Yes, scientists are philosophers. As are artists, writers, anyone who enquires into things and selves...
That's a paradox. Asking if we still need philosophy is a philosophical question in it's self. Seeing the questions and suggestions that are asked and made lately about philosophy, I definitely think we need to teach more philosophy. Because, you're basically reinventing the weel.
Not only that, it shows the lack of understanding philosophy itself
@@Drunk.Casperr ikr
I don't know about philosophy, but somebody still needs to learn sentence structure
Not certain whether or not we need still philosophy, but one should think philosophy which has movement would be more engaging?
What's with the weird music in the background? Very disturbing.
philosophy was never still, as suggested in the banner title for this video.
Arguing that science has rendered philosophy redundant is a kind of performative contradiction given that philosophy is the practice of making and assessing arguments.
"We have little things that emulate little parts of consciousness" - Peter Atkins. Really? Are they parts of consciousness, or of our senses? Big difference! Mechanics versus magical mystery
Consciousness is not a hard recipe to prepare but the traditional side dish is banana pudding and that recipe is a lost art form.
Its a bit cocky of science to say philosphy is not needed when Science itself sprung from the type of thinking that philosiphers engage in.
theres no reason to assume that cant happen again where philosophical thinking gives birth to a better science.
Im also not sure its best to reduce "Truth" to some collection of emprical facts.
I don't understand why either field collide? they are based on different fundamental ideologies and no need to discredit the one for the other to hold value. What that value might be is measured under each fields parameters and so cannot possibly over lap. The question of measure and science is a philosophical one but the measure within science is a scientific one. My lawnmower has no value when it comes to hovering my living room but it doesn't devalue its place in my lawn.
We need a new kind of “mathematical philosophy” 💭
A wild Bernardo Kastrup appears... Oh no, he's using Analytical Idealism! It's super effective!
If we didn't need philosophy, then this discussion wouldn't be happening. Of course, the distinction between the arts, science, philosophy and religion is one of emphasis; methods of enquiry. Essentially, distinctions are arbitrary and are shaped by contemporaneity. As the speakers all know our condition is one of curiosity, so philosophy, definitions of philosophy and the global nature of human enquiry (culture(s)) will be salient as long as we are around.
The notion that scientific method is "truth" is problematic and that scientific methods will end in a comprehension of reality, that is definitive is absurd and counters "la condition humaine". For me discussions around these subjects tend to be politicised rather than creative/educative and purposely reflective of the current tropes of the society(ies) that the speakers inhabit. Absorbing approaches from non-Western cultures may allow for a more eclectic and stimulating debate.
The pleasure of an orgasm, a good one, is neither philosophy, nor science. It just is what it is, like the Big Bang!
The hard problem of consciousness always undermines pure scientism. Peter's take is ridiculous. Science cannot "fully simulate consciousness," because it is using it to do the analysis, you can't isolate it as an independent variable and therefore you cannot evaluate it with the scientific method.
For the scientific method an isolation as an independent variable is not needed. I hear this misconception often. I suspect it comes from an oversimplification taught in some school systems. Isolation as an independent variable is just a good way to get high quality data. But it's not an requirement.
Moreover what is commonly understood as the scientific method (which includes testing hypotheses via experiments) is not what all of science relies on.
The modern version of the scientific method (statistical learning theory) has no such requirement on being testable in the sense of controlled experiments.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Despite all evidence to the contrary in all education, in any search about the scientific method and its history, you are flippantly claiming that "the scientific method does not require an independent variable." Despite being the one making the extraordinary claim, you then deign to say that I could only think the scientific method requires independent and dependent variables because of a lackluster education.
You still grant that having an independent and dependent variable is the ideal, but in some fringe cases of statistical modeling it is not required. Doesn't statistical learning require some known data sets to make hypothesis about unknown data? The hard problem of consciousness remains, as consciousness precedes any data set-- you use consciousness to evaluate the data sets (known or unknown)! Do you think that statistical learning theory could somehow solve the hard problem of consciousness? If so, how? How could it possibly "fully simulate" that which precedes the data you put into the statistical model?
If it cannot, then your bringing it up is irrelevant and purely sophistry in defense of scientism.
@@AnHonestDoubter Statistical learning theory contains a proof of what strategies are able to approximate the truth. No isolation of independent variables required.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos I will take that reply as a concession. Good luck 1:1 replicating consciousness via material science with an "approximation of truth." 🤦♂️
@@AnHonestDoubter Seems you're not interested in correcting your or even checking for misconceptions about how science works.
If that changes feel free to respond again. Until then I'll leave that discussion.
The third speaker is good. It's ponderous the man spoke of rape when he talked about unbridled instincts and the woman talked of snacking.
Philo -love
Sophi'-knowldge
Philosophy I suppose is love of knowledge and isn't science knowledge coz.....
Hello, I'm father Atkins, Welcome to the Orthodox Church of reductionist materialism. Computation will save your souless machine body.
No we don't. Philosophy is human centric. It isn't a science in any way shape or form.
The reason why philosophy exists is beyond the scope of this video
@Akun It was historically. But it is not anymore. Not in the educational structure and not in its methodology and foundation.
Supp. Human centricism (aka anthropocentrism) is a 'subject' of philosophy. And it's not philosophy in it's entirety.
Philosophy developed science, therefore philosophy can never be a subject of science (had these two confused before the edit). Philosophy is always applicable to anything.
(See my response to Daubechies wavelets)
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Those educational structures, methodologies and foundations that you are talking about are created by philosophy. History has nothing to do with it. Philosophy is timeless. Philosophy in it's entirety is always overarching every subject and every topic. Even history is philosophy's bit**, said plainly.
@@AVGVSTVS6314 I disagree. How science works at the moment comes from mathematics (statistical learning theory). All the methodology and foundation comes from other scientific disciplines (physics lends chemistry methodologies) and other branches of mathematics (analysis, inference statistics,...).
And philosophy is not timeless. It lacks a methodology of approximating the truth. Mathematics has proofs. Science has estimates of predictive power (statistical learning theory). But what has philosophy? So I don't see a reason philosophy should converge in some sense to insights independent of its history.
@@AVGVSTVS6314 no. Philosophy is a human construct. Whereas math and physics are what they are no matter the species.
What we ponder or don't understand could be trivial to another species yet outside of our domain.
I'm asserting philosophy is a reflection of human kind,not a representation of the human mind or science or facts.
Careful,Julian believes Greta Thunberg is an expert on climate change 😂😂🤔🤔
I would say philosophy at the moment is more or less useless.
If you disagree, what is the answer to the following question:
What non-trivial statement comes from philosophy? I can point to such statements in scientific disciplines I'm not familiar with. But I can't point to something in philosophy.
“At the moment” yes, absolutely! Nice nuance - agreed.
Agreed. But science us pretty much dead too as far as big fundamental questions are concerned. At least for last 30-40 years
You can start with finding a non-trivial statement from philosophy in for example Philosophy of law (and than more specific about the subject 'identity' (what's somebody's identity?)). Good luck!
@@AVGVSTVS6314 Can you give a concrete non-trivial statement?
@@firstal3799 I not exactly sure what "big fundamental questions" are for you.
But for me these are rare questions which need a lot of evidence or luck (where a theory gives a useful information about it like general relativity).
And 20-30 years are not the right time frame for that.
It's possible that I misunderstood you. Feel free for example to list examples of questions as week as possible which are big fundamental questions in your opinion.
First five minutes says it all.
Phillip Goff all true
Peter Aitken ..all false .
Be rigorous and take those propositions apart and this will be evident .
Listen... LoL Blabla
Second speaker doesn't even know know consciousness is. Lol