Not only that. His argument would not be taken seriously by professional philosophers. Philosophers don't theorize about how the brain works but how the cognition works. If philosophers wanted to study the mind- they would pick up a neuroscience class as another form of knowledge from their ontologies. Btw how are you now 9 years 😂
This type of failure that a philosopher would not fall in. Now all that is left to imagine the more fallacies of scientific theories which must first endure harsh criticism of a philosopher.
He defined the meaning of meaning in the beginning (for this exact reason) as, essentially, just the description of the thing. What is the significance of life? Stripped down even further, just... what is it and what are its purposes (not, what is its 'cosmic purpose', but what are the purposes it might put itself to)? This is its distinct significance from everything else which equally just 'is' in the universe. So while some initial philosophy is needed to frame the question, he's saying the answer doesn't come from _philosophizing._ It comes from a scientific account of living systems and their essential qualities. All these commenters echoing themselves and nobody gets this.
Philosophy is the first and the mother of all sciences and has nothing to do with religion. Also it looks like E.O. Wilson has no idea of what philosophy actually deals with, he also confuses meaning with origin, biology, the origin of the universe, etc, and so forth. Philosophers have never tried to speculate on biological models or tried to explain the origin of life as an epistemology issue within philosophy. What I find funny is that E.O. Wilson is philosophizing about how philosophy will not explain the meaning of life,etc, it's rather ironic. The very action of asking oneself "What is the meaning of life?" is making philosophy.
I saw this coming immediately. Another ignorant scientist strawmanning a whole discipline because of the loud-mouthed theologians who keep pretending to be philosophers so as to preserve their own intellectual dignity.
Ryan Hutton Yes thought the same. I wonder if this guy's book was even peered reviewed because his premise is so fundamentally wrong can be spotted miles away.
Orlando Al Dana Mary Midgley wrote about his sociobiology book that he suffered severely from conceptual confusion, scientism, and anthropomorphism of genetics. Sounds about right.
8:55 This purports to be a representation of basic philosophical thinking; an insult to such a rigorous and fascinating discipline. Imagine if I were to look into a microscope and speak as if to parody all scientific investigation. Understandably, you would protest by arguing that scientific investigation is much more involved than simply staring through a lens. Similarly, philosophical thinking touches on MUCH more than that one question, including: - What is the most effective means of argumentation? - What makes an action good? - What is knowledge? And through what means does one become knowledgeable? - What is beauty? His depiction of philosophy in this video is dishonest, disrespectful, and unconvincing.
0:54 Yes, those questions can be answered via science, but none of them "explain the meaning of existence" (or meaning of life) in the same sense as in philosophy. They simply ask "how" and "where are we going", but have nothing to do with things such as meaning or purpose (is there a point to what we are doing, etc). Sorry, people need to stop knocking philosophy (especially the analytic variety), as the very essence of science (as natural philosophy btw) depends on it. And no, there is no ultimate meaning. ;-)
I dont know if you noticed but there is a word called "will" in the title of the video . Can you possibly imagine the human race one million years from now ?How far have we come in 100 years ? 120 years ago electricity was discovered .We have no idea what our future descendants will discover and invent .Technologies like Time travel ,teleportation ,telepathy ,inter-dimension travel and the ability to find a correct answer to everything could all be extremely old news one million years from now .Like us talking about black and white tv .Philosophy is trying to solve a problem via thinking , thinking alone will not achieve an outcome unless its translated into a physical action .Science deals with things we can see and touch not just ideas in our head .
dimetilldeath None of those questions (at 0:54) WILL "explain the meaning of existence" (or meaning of life) in the same sense as in philosophy. And I'm certainly not knocking science (though think you may be watching too much star trek). I'm just saying that philosophy is just as important as science (if not more in regards to things such as ethics, etc)...and people need to stop knocking it down as if science replaces it. They both work together. And philosophy deals with both things we can see and touch and deductive processes as well (just as science does btw).
You Daymon OK I was more just saying that someday science will invent such a technology that will be able to tell us the answers to such questions maybe not every question but ya .To me philosophy is so subjective person to person .One person thinks this that other thinks the opposite .Opinions are moulded from our upbringing , experiences and intelligence. Science does not care what our opinions are, it only cares for proof and evidence .We indeed need to think about problems and how to solve them but unless its translated in physical action nothing will be achieved .Philosophy is a road that goes around in circles because it does not require conformation and evidence thus leading to infinite angles of opinion .Science can tell us yes or no ,philosophy can only ask why
Personally, I think asking the question: "What is the meaning of Existence" in an objective sense is foundationally incorrect. Meaning isn't an inherent corporeal property, it is an ethereal construct brought about via the thinking of us bizarre, sentient beings. It is in our pondering of the significance of things to our existences that we draw meaning. I'm highly doubting a rock is taking the time to ponder the atomic bonds keeping its structure together against the forces of entropy. To say that science will define the meaning of existence implies that there is a meaning the universe itself bears. I think the only meaning a corporeal construct like existence can ascribe to itself is to reiterate itself. It exists because it exists, where is the place to put meaning in that? I can sympathize with scientists and their issues having to deal with many a "philosopher", or religious zealots who may decry their efforts when it clashes with their chosen applications of meaning (I noted Mr. Wilson cited religious "philosophers" quite a few times), however I don't that should cloud the situation at hand. The irony is, to say science will answer that question, is a philosophy in that of itself. I wouldn't know if there's a term for it (I'm a hobbyist philosopher, I look into it and ponder it from time to time, but who doesn't?) I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that or that some of the points made here aren't valid (I for one love the science better helps us understand the nature of reality in a corporeal sense and am particularly interested in the way studies into AI and the brain will give us new insights on the nature of consciousness), it it's just a bit ironic to propose the idea that your philosophy isn't a philosophy and will find a meaning when it itself is not an item capable of finding meaning, an inherently subjective element. Great video, it really gives one something to think about. Probably why this is called "Big Think" right?
Even if Science could finally predict every emotion and every thought and set a way to “maximize” the happiness of mankind, even in that case will be a dictatorship while people like me can exist considering that science cannot answer that question and philosophers and every person can have a different conception of what meaning is.
So many things here highly debatable. But let's start for meaning, meaning as a synonym of significance well is highly subjective. In terms of spacio-temporal measurement our significance is infinitesimaly small. Then he interpret it as origen, and that for sure biology has a lot to tell us, but in terms of culture anthropology is limited by degradation of all that is used to study humanity, simple enough is to imagine what would be left of us now after ten thousand years, nothing, people would say that we where gatherers and hunters if no historical context was available. Then meaning as a cognitive interpretation is limited by the instrument itsel that is the brain, the big why? And that is part of brain function and possibly an evolutionary trait, so yes study of the brain will tell us the inconsistency of the concept of questioning itself. Beyond this he equates philosophy, religion, mythology, and thas a big mistake. Oriental philosophy has answers like understanding that mind in itself is unsubstantial, and that meaning is an illusion, and knowledge of physical fenomena is extremely limited, mechanistic science is extremly limited, we are childrens very arrogant childrens light years away of understanding the profound implications of life.
I think philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion will all die out. Science deals with facts and when proven incorrect, admits it. Research in the other areas can barely be replicated but researches insist their conclusion are correct. So arrogant.
Yet *another* scientist who bashes philosophy and then proceeds to give arguments he would know are incoherent if only he had spent a minimal amount of time actually reading philosophy.
E.O. Wilson basically says that we will know the Meaning of Existence once we can answer two questions: How we got here: Evolutionary biology, Paleontology, Archaeology How the mind works: Brain science, Artificial intelligence, Robotics
As a philosopher, I find the arrogance of some scientists, who childishly attack "philosophers", claiming philosophy to be dead, fascinating. Many of them forget that their PhD is a "philosophy doctorate" degree. Some of them do not seem to pay attention to changes in modern physics/science while propagating obsolete theories. Super-symmetry has been ruled out as a theory, cosmology had led to the staggering fact that 95% of the universe is unknown if not unknowable. There have been several new discoveries, like negative kelvin temperatures, that challenge the presupposed world view of the past century. String theory is a fantasy with 20,000+ theoretical variations without any link to physical reality. Yet, some how, there are scientists who "know better" proclaiming philosophy is dead. What about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Doesn't that mean mathematics is dead too or do we have a bias?! Science & philosophy have an inescapable overlapping problem: people. People will always put their opinions over the ideas they dislike regardless if the ideas are based in science or philosophy. It's shameful that some so-called scientist use science as justification to be childish and as an intellectual weapon to attack the thinking process of others and discourage others from science. When science is used in this manner, it takes on the propensities of being a cult.
Well, In a sense, it is nice that some humans devoted to the philosophy of "Scientism" shows that science is a human endeavor affected by human hopes, prejudges, ignorance, policies and ideologies... But it is just a Ted Talk-Big Think Kind of stuff... an editorial policy based on "American" Naive Optimism, Commerce, Entrepreneurship, Marketing, Technology and Scientism ... They have to sell their perspective and support the social figures who feed the political creed... and this guy is selling his books about scientism, then, he make a Loyalty-Target campaign to preserve the audience... ("dot com" is point commerce...) It seems that lot of "scientists", "pseudo-intelectual" anglosaxons and westerners have to exist always on a kind of polarized ideological conflict ... They are always trying to force people to assume ideological statements and perspectives about everything ... The simple fact of just observe without emit judges is an alien state of cognitive power for that people... With certainty, We can not do something or nothing with Idiocy... Just observe that and learn about the biases ... Of course, Mr Wince... The guy have "to kill" philosophers because, Philosophers and rational Thinkers can reduce his market for funding, scientism and naive market based tech-optimisms...
Science has sadly become a quasi religion rather than simply a tool for the use of observation and logic in relation to the physical world. Generally my opinion is with science, "can this be used to create any useful technology to make my life easier or give me more knowledge/power?" If not, than it isn't science it is pointless conjecture.
I think philosophy is just lazy science these days. They want to be men of knowledge without doing the hardwork : theories, hypothesis, experiments, calculations and predictions. It seems that you (philosophers) are so lazy to get your head around theories and concepts. Like have you ever tried topology ? It seems so clear why all disciplines are fighting science (they do not show it), they are trying to remain in the game.
MaroniteCatholic ofJesus Nonsense. Philosophy is not natural science so your accusation that philosophers are not "doing the hardwork"or are to lazy to do the hardwork is just BS. Most of the work philosophers do is developing basic conceptual models and clarifying assumptions. They are a relatively small group of people compared to the vast group of different scientists. And yes I have tried topology, as I have studied more than one subject. What is your point?
Wilson's characterization of philosophy doesn't seem to reflect much exposure to contemporary analytic philosophy. Starting with GE Moore, we might find it important to understand what the question is that Wilson is trying to answer. Famously inspired by analytic phl, Douglas Adams wrote in Hitchhiker's of a computer that, after hundreds of years of computation, answered 42 to what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything. The descendants of those who built the computer were thoroughly unsatisfied with that answer. After some contemplation, they asked the computer to determine what question it was that it was answering.... and the computer went on computing (perhaps for eternity) to figure out what question it was answering by outputting 42. It's not clear from this video that Wilson has any better grasp of what he's asking than the builders of the computer in Adams' story.
The meaning of human existence falls instead to science? Surely meaning to life is the meaning you give it. Would not a clearer definition be, that science will likely provide humanity understanding on the core mechanics of how existence becomes. The meaning though i beg to differ.
TH-cam commentors think they know more than a research professor at Harvard University, a lecturer at Duke University, a humanist laureate, and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize. TH-cam Science!!! /s/
Not very hard to know more than them when the research professor starts talking about a subject he is blatantly ignorant in, whereas you yourself have a degree in it. This is becoming a problem of modern scientists however. They are becoming less philosophical as for some reason all the praise they get makes them seem to think a scientific approach to everything will work. It doesn't however, it only works for science. If you try and be scientific about literary criticism you will fail and so on with other disciplines including philosophy. That isn't however to say that science plays no part in philosophy. It very clearly does, it's just science is not synonymous with philosophy.
Makes a non-empirical and wholly subjective definition of meaning and then goes on to explain how science, and not any other type of discipline, will be able to explain the meaning of existence using a semantic argument. Meanwhile he calls philosophy useless. *claps hands at this guy's ignorance*
Great thing about manning of existence is, we don't need to know about it to live happy and fulfilled lives. I want a robotic avatar that will not brake, malfunction and constantly download new patches.
It's not hard to see which ideological tradition Wilson represents from how he speaks of science, religion and the Enlightenment. But essentially it seems that Wilson is suggesting that once we figure out the present and the past we can predict the probable future and that will allow us to look at the probable end result to say what was point of it all and derive meaning from that. So Wilson is a scientist with a Golden Hammer called science so he thinks that all problems are scientific problems to be solved? Isn't this just pure scientism? "It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of - namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography" - Nietzsche
Urgh. Says philosophy doesn't matter, starts with semantic argument. Uses logic. Typical. I hate scientists who think philosophy and culture isn't important, it just sounds ignorant because everyone has implicit, philosophical notions behind what they say. The only difference between philosophy's and other disciplines' presumptions is that in philosophy those presumptions are made explicit. And all that is ignoring the absurdity of suggesting science can vest anything with meaning, when science has shown us the indifference and meaninglessness of the universe. It is typical, however, because in the science-centric world we live in, human beings, like this one, try to find meaning when there clearly isn't any to be found, so they implicitly change their worldview to support stupidity like "science can find meaning", without examining it. That is not saying philosophy can do much with stuff like "philosophy of the mind" and metaphysics (which is pretty pointless), but things like ethics, personhood, aesthetics, logic, political philosophy all still have some place in discourse. Science has its place too, its just when it crosses into stuff it can't justify that it starts to sound like a bunch of pretentious scientists who don't know what they are talking about.
Meta-physics is pointless? What? The hell do you think all the scientific advancements post-Einstein were enabled by? Meta-physics. Interpretations of QM are wholly meta-physical and have been the basis for all scientific progression in the last 50years. Without meta-physics science would make no sense. Ordinary physics is grounded in meta-physical assumptions.
Philosophy is science before whatever in question becomes measurable. Philosophy is questions, science is answers. Whichever one values higher will explain the meaning of existence to them, if any meaning is to be made at all.
Scientists are very pragmatic and can't handle that these fundamental questions are heavily ingrained with philosophical analysis, rigourous logical arguments and also arguments from other *important* philosophers that are nescessary for broader context. Per say, if you are studying philosophy of physics studying Isaac Newton's natural philosophical conception of time and space is necessary if you are interested from the debate between absolute space and time or relative proposed by Albert Einstein. These fundamental questions no matter what empirical authority, cannot immediately suffice it. Philosophers are grappling with these questions for millennia (especially the most brilliant one) for good reasons and most very straight-minded scientists who doesn't have any appreciations for philosophy always utterly fail to grasp these philosophical issues with open mindedness and intellectual humility.
But science does eventually hit a wall. If the topic under consideration is all-that-exists, the problem is that all-that-exists does not exist within a broader context. All-that-exists cannot even be a topic, since a "topic" is a subject under consideration by a being who is a part of a broader context.
He seems very smug and doesn't seem to understand philosophy. The interesting thing about Descartes for example is not what he thought, but how he thought, who he was and what his mind was like. What is his place in the historical development of human consciousness? I mean he was one of the most important thinkers in the early days of modern science. He came up with analytical geometry and with the idea of using mathematics in the study of nature. He was a genius and everyone can learn from him, it's not about whether he was right or wrong about this or that particular subject. But yeah he's got a point, philosophy is declining because philosophers are doing it wrong. A lot could be said about the banality of analytical philosophy, or the obscurantism of continental philosophy, but just because we're living a kind of bad period in philosophy, doesn't mean the discipline is dead... Of course this dichotomy between science and philosophy is a false one. He is doing philosophy, as many commentators have pointed out, when he is asking questions about the meaning of existence, but he's also doing philosophy when he's combining all these different fields (anthropology, evolutionary biology, brain science etc.) in his own way.
In order to begin with science you need human intuition as main driver. Everything is united in some sense whether you try or not to create more separation.
"We will have our answers". O, so, if we take into account the entire history of the biological system we are part of, and realise that we now only experience a cultural peak, and forget that we once were pre-humans, how does this answer all our questions regarding the meaning of the universe? This doesn't answer anything at all, rather, it raises more questions. I doubt this man has any legitimate idea what philosophy really is. I doubt too that he is well-read in the existentialist tradition. Would be fun if he started talking about that, though, and it's complications for biology.
Meaning is context dependent and man made. The more it relies on evidence and reason as a reference point the better.... People taken in by the religious stance accept a kind of semantic mistake regarding meaning and hence ask how it is possible for life to have "meaning" without God. The answer? There is no transcendent meaning, precisely because meaning is a human construct. It still matters for us but has no reference point outside of our lives, emotions and cultures. Similarly though, Wilson here (or the big think folks responsible for the video title) mistakenly conflate identifying scientific theories with discovering meaning. Philosophy gets closer to meaning, especially when it inquires into the nature of meaning itself, which is significance, emotional values, sense of purpose etc.... Which, of course neuroscience may tell us more about in terms of the phenomenon of finding certain ideas or experiences "meaningful." The deeper question that has to be addressed is how we draw the distinction between an idea or experience being meaningful and the interpretation or belief often quickly attached to it being true.
It’s hilarious to me how these scientists are so arrogant as to judge what they have so little knowledge about. This guy doesn’t even realize that science is the practical application of philosophy. He’s so ignorant yet so arrogant
Isn't science a series of failed models? Every criticism Wilson offers applies to science equally. I'd like to see one of these "philosophy is dead" scientists to actually demonstrate a graduate level understanding of the discipline they "know" to be obsolete. Imagine if we applied this reasoning to Newtonian Mechanics in light of Relativity & Quantum Mechanics: engineering could be classified as a pseudoscience.
True understanding of the universe won't come from a Scientist nor a philosopher but likely an artist. An artist with an understanding of each discipline, but their own perspective.
Learning all the details does not lead to an understanding of "meaning".. you should debunk yourself.. everybody knows the meaning of life. And they can't but know it
How utterly incoherent to profess materialism, which allows only undirected purposeless "molecules in motion", and to talk about "meaning". There IS no meaning possible, Prof. Wilson ! Your worldview won't allow it.
When you're a hammer, all problems look like nails, or what is it they say? Isn't the answer to what the meaning of human existence is philosophical by definition, though? All the scientists are doing is providing more data for philosophers to try to unravel. The philosophical conclusion Wilson seems to draw is that understanding human existence is its own true meaning. But that might not be universally true...
Wilson is practicing philosophy while talking about how philosophy is largely irrelevant. Also, the fact that there are many creation theories doesn't mean that they're all false. And the idea that human culture created God is a blind assertion.
This video in short: 1st half = bashing religion 2nd half = praising science Conclusion to the meaning of existence = undefined I think I could get a better answer from 4th grade child.
I've come across an interesting thought. Meaning is a term. for the intention of a creation by the creator. If a blacksmith makes a horse shoe with the intention of shoeing a horse, the meaning of that horse shoe is to shoe a horse. So asking what is our meaning is a round about way of asking if an intelligent designer had intention upon our creation. If not, then life is meaningless. I sound like a creationist, right? Well you would be wrong. Just like children who were accidents, without an
This seems positivist. To a true sceptic he can never be right in what he is saying and it seems not plausible to think that science as way of answering the question of human existance. When trying to answer such questions even scientists really talk the language of philosophy because there are no scientific method of answering "why" questions.
I am sorry, but people like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins need to stick to their speciality. They can't seem to agree even on basics such as the unit of selection, so their unnecessary talk of philosophy is not very helpful.
jeansdude logical contradictions contained within bad philosophies masqeruading (labeled and sold) as "science" is their speciality. They make a lot of money with it, these philosophers calling eachother scientists for a bit more than a century. From wiki regarding the word "scientist": Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science". English *philosopher* and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,... Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated-chemist, mathematician, naturalist-the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.
if he wasn't so philosophically inedpt then maybe he would realise how much of a joke this video is. you need to undestand the question before you ask it, or before you profess your answer to it.
Life is the meaning of life. Nothing will explain the meaning of life. Everything is explaining the meaning of life every moment of time. There is only one moment of time, the present. There is no truth without contradictions. Life is.
"generally speaking after you've gone past the basic religious definition of meaning, which is of course: "*The divine creator *is responsible for the design and nature of humanity and what else do you want to know?" , there; a notion, dare I say a common induction fallacy in the Western world that *the* overall religious definition of meaning is in teleology via a creator deity. Seriously,are there not more ppl who have a deep grip of panentheism/unitheism or panetheism who can be brought onto "big think"?. It caught my attention how Mr. Wilson said" I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works.". I'm going to assume he means this of the models made in Western philosophy and it's mostly "academic home"; I'm curious to see if anyone with a thorough grip of "Eastern religions" in the conceptual AND social manifestations of them, would care to say if Dharmic and maybe Daoic religions as well are any closer in their respective models of the mind to what modern neurosci says--though this might be a question more suited to Sam Harris. To bad he didn't go into talking about phenomology or integral theory. The five fields .E.O. mentioned:molecular bio,archaeology, paleontology,brain sci and A.I. I have a feeling that most ppl think about the "objects" of those fields (the cells,the artifacts,bones,cells and robots) and neglect the super important mathematics underlying them. I'm thinking esp. about the "automated reasoning" used in A.I. I wouldn't dismiss physicists out of the project; you might not find astrophyscists handy but what about bio- or even chemophysics?. The way he's talking,things sound cool and all but I *>~< REALLY* hope no one blunders into far-reaching conclusions that are like the old Social Darwinist nonsense--but d--- it,if anyone with thoughts of turning the info on human origins into tech (or I'm more wary of:marketing) ends up trying to justify that old junk with new info "-_- --b/c part of me is hoping that somewhere along the way of science trying to get a fuller picture of "the story of humanity" the significance of altruism won't be neglected. As will some factor that can be described as "all-inclusion";love.
Neuroscience, Evolutionary Pscyhology, Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Anthropology (Paleoanthro), and Astrobiology are the disciplines that tell us where we came from and who we are. I think they do give us meaning. Next artificial intelligence and robotics can tell us where we are going and give us future purpose.
Philosophy and art, through out the history of civilization, have made us relate through emotion and thought to the eternal questions of life, way more then science has so far. It has been a constant dialogue, and hopefully it will stay such. Without humanities, we will be doomed to world much like in the movie Wall-E. And, also he thinks that Hollywood knows a good story when it sees one.... That`s where I stopped taking him seriously...
Psychology and Sociology would have it's say also. We have a growing understanding of the intersection between what is instinct, our natural patterns of thought, and what is learned, from a cultural point of view. This understanding through research, combined with neuroscience (where and how our thoughts and consciousness arise in the brain) reveals how and why we think the way we do. This will help explain the meaning of life. It might not seem glamorous to describe meaning as an emergent property of being a primate, but even consciousness can now be defined as an emergent condition in the animal kingdom. We need to ask these questions without the biases of our ego, prior assigned meanings, and most importantly without importing metaphysics.
Science is and always has been a branch of philosophy. It may be the most popular branch, but at the end of the day the scientific method is just one more philosophy. Should the method prove to be false, it will be the philosophers that find an even more effective means to discover and confirm the reality of information. I'm not saying science is wrong, its just that we should never forget that it has always been a type of philosophy.
Philosophers shouldn't feel threatened, but rather rejoyce in the knowledge that they will be able to discuss new and perhaps more relevant topics. As long as there is questions we can't answer factually, there will be philosophy.
Philosophy can be useful, but it can be misused easily..like In the case of religion. in order for something to be predictable and effective result. U need science. without that, u can basically argue anything with philosophy.
You can argue anything with Science too... It's called pseudo-science. Thing is, no respectable scientist is going to believe you. Similarly as much as you can pretend that you have philosophical justifications for believing in a personal God, unless you've got something REALLY interesting to say and better than 80% the theists that I meet no philosopher is going to believe you. That's why the statement "God doesn't exist is true" is one of the few things philosophers have a consensus above 75% on.
Nature itself answers all your questions . First , the fact that mankind questions its existence is the key . I don't believe any other species on earth does this ? They are complete , and perfect as to existing . It is mankind that asks , why do we exist ? This means we see a different future , one where we are better or more complete and comfortable with our place in existence . The fact that we view ourselves as different is clouding our view of just being out of tune with the whole of existence or universe . Our limiting ourselves to the brain as a commander or seat of everything , we are not taking into account that the brain isn't just in our sculls , everything about us is just an extension of our brain , our senses , our nervous system , is still our brain , just spread out over our physical body . Our growth as an entity is only done by pain , without pain we become weak , and don't toughen up ourselves . Our exploits into artificial intelligence is only another extension of our brain . To throw in evolution , we see that many attempts at life were tried here ie. dinosaurs , mammoths , cro-magnon . What we don't see is that we aren't from an ancestor , but an accumulation of species of a common ancestor , reptilian , mammalian , fish and foul , all with a common design . Two eyes , two ears , one nose , one head , one mouth and one sphincter . Thank you .
It has been said, even to reject the philosophy you must hold philosophy. As long as I see it, a philosopher is much higher than a scientist. He watches the totality and essence, even in the midst of human thought and its validity. These are things which a scientist generally does not deal with them.
All philosophy does is muddy the waters of science. In my opinion philosophy is just a hiding place for gods that do not exist. Given no god does exist, philosophy is a hiding place for all gods.
There are philosophers atheists. There is no connection. If philosophy leads people to believe, equally science can lead to faith. It is a matter of the discretion of each individual.faceious2006
Moti Ben Shalom You said "equally science can lead to faith". Given the foundation of which all science is established is evidence, faith is belief absent evidence, how in the world can science lead to faith?
Moti Ben Shalom I am almost 40 years old and live in the deep southern united states. I have heard every argument/rationalization for god 1000 times 1000 different ways. So what are you talking about?
The humanities are like colorful peacock feathers--displays that evolved by sexual selection that add beauty to our lives. Music, philosophy, dance, art are there to be enjoyed and we're lucky to have them, even though as Wilson argues they don't lead to the kind of knowledge that science gives us.
The meaning of existence is to help the universe push the boundaries of creation, using consciousness, which is something it could create using the constants that it had access to.
It's ridiculous how people skip the more rational question "is there a meaning?" and just ask "what is the meaning?" There's few things that annoy me more than people feeling entitled to some objective meaning to their existance in this universe. Is it really so hard for people to just accept not having a meaning and enjoy their existance while they can? "The meaning of life" is an absurd, childish, primitive fantasy and we should get over it already. As for the video itself (with all due respect), he simply redefined the word "meaning" then listed various sciences that are supposed to tell us what this "meaning" is, without explaining how.
Mark Scott "wasting" implies there could be something more productive to spend time in... if there's no meaning, it is not a waste of time, it just doesn't matters, anything would...
Wilson has a reported IQ of 123. Now the measurements have changed somewhat, but not by that much. I'd like to hear more on this topic from people with two digit IQ and some above genius levels. I've spent the majority of my life naturally withdrawing to philosophize any topic that caught my interest. For me the uses of philosophy is very much needed, especially if used in tandem with people who are purely driven by science and rationality. I have a higher IQ and tend to be irrational and all over the place, I need people to bring me back down and collect my thoughts for me. Applied to science, I believe that a healthy ratio of all these factors is needed. Too much rationality and you might not extend far enough to find new angles. Too much philosophy and you become irratic and many things remain inconclusive. One thing I do know for sure is that if nobody asked the big questions there would be no science to give definitive answers.
If we created a robot that could exactly emulate every single process that our own human brain could do, to the point where it could feel, learn, be self aware, and use all senses, would it still be a robot?
The other day I heard the term "scientism" for the first time. Now I have an example to go with it. It's interesting that Wilson skipped over the philosophy of Nietzsche and particularly of Heidegger.
Science explains 'how' things work, not 'why' but the 'how' can help us with the 'why'. The thing is meaning is ultimately a subjective experience, there is no ultimate meaning/purpose, a wooden toy can be a livelihood, a distraction, entertainment, or firewood, a hammer can be a tool but also a weapon, you cannot determine any objective meaning, in fact 'objective meaning' is an oxymoron. What is the purpose of human life? There are billions of answers for that and no amount of data will ever show one to be the ultimate answer.
What if assigning MEANING to our existence is just a way to make ourselves feel more significant than we really are? I'd bet he doesn't favor Astrophysics because, based on all observable evidence, our existence has NO inherent meaning. We simply exist. When the body dies, consciousness ceases, and our atoms return to the universal whole...which in and of itself is actually pretty cool. An extraordinary few have made contributions that will affect the world (and possibly beyond) for countless generations, but for the most part in universal terms, we matter little...if at all. One could argue that the lessons we teach our children contribute to the cumulative shaping of the future, but then at best each individual is merely a drop in the ocean. Moreover, even if we do contribute thus, most will never live to see any significant result, and those who DO see it will have long since forgotten about individual ancestral contributions. As such, I ask this. As long as one's existence is not detrimental to the survival of one's fellow beings, what's wrong with accepting universal meaninglessness?
You can't get an Ought from an Is, but you certainly can get a Why. The 'goal' of (most) life (forms) is to reproduce and learn (DNA learns about its environment with each successive generation - that's what evolution is after all). However, the goal/purpose of life is NOT the same thing as the Meaning of Life. It appears each individual life form must choose its own 'meaning' - this is highly subjective so science (which focuses on the objective) has limited scope in aiding this choice.
Meaning is an informational construct, and is user definable. "One person's junk is another person's treasure." Thus you don't need to look for it you can create it. So if you need science to bring meaning in to your life, ok. I am a big fan, but I don't need it to tell me what should be meaningful, I will decide that for myself thank you very much.
The nihilism is strong in this comment section. Humans will never figure everything out. We're really the joke of the cosmos.. All our hot air talks about how advanced we are... Cancer is still kicking our ass and a giant asteroid still poses a high threat. The category should be 'comedy' for this worthless video.
Science will be able to explain what Humanity 'is', both past, present, and future. Philosophy will be able to explain whom we 'are', as a species known as humans. The meaning of existence will be dependant on your point of view. If you want to "feel" whom you are (which is more sensible since quantum mechanics of variable infinity would never be able to be fully understood within your life) you'll always lean towards Philosophy. If you want to clutch, you'll seek answers from the external world to better make sense of a deep internal paradox. Just remember one thing... There's no use in having if you don't appreciate.
It really irks me when ignorant people dismiss philosophy as unimportant or useless. They don't realize that philosophy is probably the single most important field there is when it comes to driving the progress of humankind.
I believe that philosophers arguing against him are looking at this wrong. Philosophy indeed will not answer the meaning of existence, because philosophy consists of asking pertinent questions, and discussing context. It does not find objective answers, because that's not the point. Science, however, seeks to answer questions by adding together all possible evidence. There's not a real conflict. It's just a misunderstanding of roles.
I think I cracked it while on psylocilbin: Science can explain our meaning: evolution prioritizes survival and procreation. Our meaning from that perspective is to improve existence for our next generations, to improve the world so they are more successful than we are. That's how our ancestor fish moved to land, to survive and reproduce. And it's how we can find peace and enjoy our morals, our evolved culture, and our day-to-day life: make the future better for our kids, and they can make it even better for theirs, and so on. We've been distracted through all of human history. So make the world better for the next generation. It's why we're here.
Well, Buddhism is the only religion that doesn't have a creation or a creator. Life is eternal so it doesn't have a start neither an ending. The pinnacle of the Buddhist teaching is the Lotus Sutra and the faith that is required to get enlightenment is the faith in your inner buddahood. 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
He makes interesting points, but I don't agree with the tittle of this talk. Science- Systematic knowledge of the PHYSICAL or MATERIAL world gained through observation and experimentation. Philosophy- Rational investigation of the truths and principles of conduct, being, or knowledge. So in other words, science is seeking TANGIBLE facts and physical laws, while philosophy is seeking ABSTRACT meaning and conduct. I believe both are necessary for a meaning to life. You need a bed of TANGIBLE facts that are produced through science as foundation to rationally synthesize an ABSTRACT meaning to life. They are dependent on one another in this case. My personal opinion is that the meaning to life is 42... The only other thing I want to mention is about his comment that sounded something like " philosophy is going down hill. " This bugged me. One reason is that as the gradual increase of technology arises from science, furthering human capabilities and globalization, moral philosophy will need to be practiced to keep these new possibilities in check and on an ethical path.
Geah... did this guy study any Philo? Like seriously we're not in a Cartesian mode anymore, some are, but most have moved on since the Linguistic turn. I mean, I'm just an undergrad but as far as I can tell Wittgenstein kind of fixed all the kinds of problems this guy's talking about. Plus how he's talking about A.I. makes me think he's not grasping the problems they're running into (as far as true artificial intelligence). And what is he going on about "knowing the history means we won't be inquisitive"? If I were to read a book from beginning to finish I would still have the same questions about what it meant if I had just started reading near the end, sure I'm better equipped to ask the questions, but I still have the questions. I'll always have the questions. Philo will never be obsolete, even if you consider it a luxury like art or music, it will never become obsolete.
Don't deny that having children is a choice, and not an imperative. Therefore, there's a reason/meaning for your kids. You assume that philosophy ONLY tries to answer questions about the past. Well, it also tries to answer questions about the future. We might not know the past reason/meaning of life, but we most certainly do know the reason why we have children. The future meaning for/of life, is defined by us. And science cannot answer that.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
The amount of triggered philosophers in the comments section is hilarious
E.O. Wilson discrediting philosophy, by using philosophy.
Not only that. His argument would not be taken seriously by professional philosophers. Philosophers don't theorize about how the brain works but how the cognition works. If philosophers wanted to study the mind- they would pick up a neuroscience class as another form of knowledge from their ontologies.
Btw how are you now 9 years 😂
I don't see how, once you're talking about such a thing as "the meaning of existence", you are not practicing philosophy.
Pretty damn ironic ha?!
This type of failure that a philosopher would not fall in.
Now all that is left to imagine the more fallacies of scientific theories which must first endure harsh criticism of a philosopher.
He's talking about academic philosophy not philosophy itself
@@user-jh5hl8nk1z what academic philosophers are saying what he thinks they're saying?
He defined the meaning of meaning in the beginning (for this exact reason) as, essentially, just the description of the thing. What is the significance of life? Stripped down even further, just... what is it and what are its purposes (not, what is its 'cosmic purpose', but what are the purposes it might put itself to)? This is its distinct significance from everything else which equally just 'is' in the universe. So while some initial philosophy is needed to frame the question, he's saying the answer doesn't come from _philosophizing._ It comes from a scientific account of living systems and their essential qualities. All these commenters echoing themselves and nobody gets this.
Philosophy is the first and the mother of all sciences and has nothing to do with religion. Also it looks like E.O. Wilson has no idea of what philosophy actually deals with, he also confuses meaning with origin, biology, the origin of the universe, etc, and so forth. Philosophers have never tried to speculate on biological models or tried to explain the origin of life as an epistemology issue within philosophy. What I find funny is that E.O. Wilson is philosophizing about how philosophy will not explain the meaning of life,etc, it's rather ironic. The very action of asking oneself "What is the meaning of life?" is making philosophy.
Spot on.
I saw this coming immediately. Another ignorant scientist strawmanning a whole discipline because of the loud-mouthed theologians who keep pretending to be philosophers so as to preserve their own intellectual dignity.
Ryan Hutton Yes thought the same. I wonder if this guy's book was even peered reviewed because his premise is so fundamentally wrong can be spotted miles away.
Orlando Al Dana Mary Midgley wrote about his sociobiology book that he suffered severely from conceptual confusion, scientism, and anthropomorphism of genetics. Sounds about right.
Philosophy is not a science ,science requires proof , Philosophy only requires thinking about something ,its so broad and undefined.
scientists only focus on gathering facts, but they don't think, philosophers do.
8:55
This purports to be a representation of basic philosophical thinking; an insult to such a rigorous and fascinating discipline.
Imagine if I were to look into a microscope and speak as if to parody all scientific investigation. Understandably, you would protest by arguing that scientific investigation is much more involved than simply staring through a lens.
Similarly, philosophical thinking touches on MUCH more than that one question, including:
- What is the most effective means of argumentation?
- What makes an action good?
- What is knowledge? And through what means does one become knowledgeable?
- What is beauty?
His depiction of philosophy in this video is dishonest, disrespectful, and unconvincing.
Beauty is obviously subjective nonsense, and you apparently don't know what dishonesty is.
Came for the comments, was not disappointed :D
0:54 Yes, those questions can be answered via science, but none of them "explain the meaning of existence" (or meaning of life) in the same sense as in philosophy. They simply ask "how" and "where are we going", but have nothing to do with things such as meaning or purpose (is there a point to what we are doing, etc). Sorry, people need to stop knocking philosophy (especially the analytic variety), as the very essence of science (as natural philosophy btw) depends on it.
And no, there is no ultimate meaning. ;-)
I dont know if you noticed but there is a word called "will" in the title of the video .
Can you possibly imagine the human race one million years from now ?How far have we come in 100 years ? 120 years ago electricity was discovered .We have no idea what our future descendants will discover and invent .Technologies like Time travel ,teleportation ,telepathy ,inter-dimension travel and the ability to find a correct answer to everything could all be extremely old news one million years from now .Like us talking about black and white tv .Philosophy is trying to solve a problem via thinking , thinking alone will not achieve an outcome unless its translated into a physical action .Science deals with things we can see and touch not just ideas in our head .
dimetilldeath Philosophy draws from science. Do you think meaning is something we can touch?
dimetilldeath
None of those questions (at 0:54) WILL "explain the meaning of existence" (or meaning of life) in the same sense as in philosophy. And I'm certainly not knocking science (though think you may be watching too much star trek). I'm just saying that philosophy is just as important as science (if not more in regards to things such as ethics, etc)...and people need to stop knocking it down as if science replaces it. They both work together. And philosophy deals with both things we can see and touch and deductive processes as well (just as science does btw).
*****
lol
You Daymon OK I was more just saying that someday science will invent such a technology that will be able to tell us the answers to such questions maybe not every question but ya .To me philosophy is so subjective person to person .One person thinks this that other thinks the opposite .Opinions are moulded from our upbringing , experiences and intelligence. Science does not care what our opinions are, it only cares for proof and evidence .We indeed need to think about problems and how to solve them but unless its translated in physical action nothing will be achieved .Philosophy is a road that goes around in circles because it does not require conformation and evidence thus leading to infinite angles of opinion .Science can tell us yes or no ,philosophy can only ask why
Personally, I think asking the question: "What is the meaning of Existence" in an objective sense is foundationally incorrect. Meaning isn't an inherent corporeal property, it is an ethereal construct brought about via the thinking of us bizarre, sentient beings. It is in our pondering of the significance of things to our existences that we draw meaning. I'm highly doubting a rock is taking the time to ponder the atomic bonds keeping its structure together against the forces of entropy.
To say that science will define the meaning of existence implies that there is a meaning the universe itself bears. I think the only meaning a corporeal construct like existence can ascribe to itself is to reiterate itself. It exists because it exists, where is the place to put meaning in that?
I can sympathize with scientists and their issues having to deal with many a "philosopher", or religious zealots who may decry their efforts when it clashes with their chosen applications of meaning (I noted Mr. Wilson cited religious "philosophers" quite a few times), however I don't that should cloud the situation at hand. The irony is, to say science will answer that question, is a philosophy in that of itself. I wouldn't know if there's a term for it (I'm a hobbyist philosopher, I look into it and ponder it from time to time, but who doesn't?)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that or that some of the points made here aren't valid (I for one love the science better helps us understand the nature of reality in a corporeal sense and am particularly interested in the way studies into AI and the brain will give us new insights on the nature of consciousness), it it's just a bit ironic to propose the idea that your philosophy isn't a philosophy and will find a meaning when it itself is not an item capable of finding meaning, an inherently subjective element.
Great video, it really gives one something to think about. Probably why this is called "Big Think" right?
Even if Science could finally predict every emotion and every thought and set a way to “maximize” the happiness of mankind, even in that case will be a dictatorship while people like me can exist considering that science cannot answer that question and philosophers and every person can have a different conception of what meaning is.
So many things here highly debatable. But let's start for meaning, meaning as a synonym of significance well is highly subjective. In terms of spacio-temporal measurement our significance is infinitesimaly small. Then he interpret it as origen, and that for sure biology has a lot to tell us, but in terms of culture anthropology is limited by degradation of all that is used to study humanity, simple enough is to imagine what would be left of us now after ten thousand years, nothing, people would say that we where gatherers and hunters if no historical context was available. Then meaning as a cognitive interpretation is limited by the instrument itsel that is the brain, the big why? And that is part of brain function and possibly an evolutionary trait, so yes study of the brain will tell us the inconsistency of the concept of questioning itself. Beyond this he equates philosophy, religion, mythology, and thas a big mistake. Oriental philosophy has answers like understanding that mind in itself is unsubstantial, and that meaning is an illusion, and knowledge of physical fenomena is extremely limited, mechanistic science is extremly limited, we are childrens very arrogant childrens light years away of understanding the profound implications of life.
Light years away is figurative speaking. I love you to the moon and back. ;)
Beautifully said.
I think philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion will all die out. Science deals with facts and when proven incorrect, admits it. Research in the other areas can barely be replicated but researches insist their conclusion are correct. So arrogant.
Dell Hewey // Hello Dell,
Perhaps PPS&R are the fuel for Science?
Yet *another* scientist who bashes philosophy and then proceeds to give arguments he would know are incoherent if only he had spent a minimal amount of time actually reading philosophy.
E.O. Wilson basically says that we will know the Meaning of Existence once we can answer two questions:
How we got here: Evolutionary biology, Paleontology, Archaeology
How the mind works: Brain science, Artificial intelligence, Robotics
also where we will be going based on last two disciplines
it was a useless video
As a philosopher, I find the arrogance of some scientists, who childishly attack "philosophers", claiming philosophy to be dead, fascinating. Many of them forget that their PhD is a "philosophy doctorate" degree. Some of them do not seem to pay attention to changes in modern physics/science while propagating obsolete theories. Super-symmetry has been ruled out as a theory, cosmology had led to the staggering fact that 95% of the universe is unknown if not unknowable. There have been several new discoveries, like negative kelvin temperatures, that challenge the presupposed world view of the past century. String theory is a fantasy with 20,000+ theoretical variations without any link to physical reality. Yet, some how, there are scientists who "know better" proclaiming philosophy is dead. What about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Doesn't that mean mathematics is dead too or do we have a bias?! Science & philosophy have an inescapable overlapping problem: people. People will always put their opinions over the ideas they dislike regardless if the ideas are based in science or philosophy. It's shameful that some so-called scientist use science as justification to be childish and as an intellectual weapon to attack the thinking process of others and discourage others from science. When science is used in this manner, it takes on the propensities of being a cult.
Well, In a sense, it is nice that some humans devoted to the philosophy of "Scientism" shows that science is a human endeavor affected by human hopes, prejudges, ignorance, policies and ideologies...
But it is just a Ted Talk-Big Think Kind of stuff... an editorial policy based on "American" Naive Optimism, Commerce, Entrepreneurship, Marketing, Technology and Scientism ...
They have to sell their perspective and support the social figures who feed the political creed... and this guy is selling his books about scientism, then, he make a Loyalty-Target campaign to preserve the audience... ("dot com" is point commerce...)
It seems that lot of "scientists", "pseudo-intelectual" anglosaxons and westerners have to exist always on a kind of polarized ideological conflict ...
They are always trying to force people to assume ideological statements and perspectives about everything ...
The simple fact of just observe without emit judges is an alien state of cognitive power for that people...
With certainty, We can not do something or nothing with Idiocy... Just observe that and learn about the biases ...
Of course, Mr Wince... The guy have "to kill" philosophers because, Philosophers and rational Thinkers can reduce his market for funding, scientism and naive market based tech-optimisms...
Science has sadly become a quasi religion rather than simply a tool for the use of observation and logic in relation to the physical world. Generally my opinion is with science, "can this be used to create any useful technology to make my life easier or give me more knowledge/power?" If not, than it isn't science it is pointless conjecture.
I think philosophy is just lazy science these days. They want to be men of knowledge without doing the hardwork : theories, hypothesis, experiments, calculations and predictions. It seems that you (philosophers) are so lazy to get your head around theories and concepts. Like have you ever tried topology ?
It seems so clear why all disciplines are fighting science (they do not show it), they are trying to remain in the game.
MaroniteCatholic ofJesus
Nonsense. Philosophy is not natural science so your accusation that philosophers are not "doing the hardwork"or are to lazy to do the hardwork is just BS. Most of the work philosophers do is developing basic conceptual models and clarifying assumptions. They are a relatively small group of people compared to the vast group of different scientists.
And yes I have tried topology, as I have studied more than one subject. What is your point?
Wilson's characterization of philosophy doesn't seem to reflect much exposure to contemporary analytic philosophy.
Starting with GE Moore, we might find it important to understand what the question is that Wilson is trying to answer.
Famously inspired by analytic phl, Douglas Adams wrote in Hitchhiker's of a computer that, after hundreds of years of computation, answered 42 to what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything. The descendants of those who built the computer were thoroughly unsatisfied with that answer. After some contemplation, they asked the computer to determine what question it was that it was answering.... and the computer went on computing (perhaps for eternity) to figure out what question it was answering by outputting 42.
It's not clear from this video that Wilson has any better grasp of what he's asking than the builders of the computer in Adams' story.
The meaning of human existence falls instead to science? Surely meaning to life is the meaning you give it. Would not a clearer definition be, that science will likely provide humanity understanding on the core mechanics of how existence becomes. The meaning though i beg to differ.
TH-cam commentors think they know more than a research professor at Harvard University, a lecturer at Duke University, a humanist laureate, and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize.
TH-cam Science!!! /s/
Not very hard to know more than them when the research professor starts talking about a subject he is blatantly ignorant in, whereas you yourself have a degree in it. This is becoming a problem of modern scientists however. They are becoming less philosophical as for some reason all the praise they get makes them seem to think a scientific approach to everything will work. It doesn't however, it only works for science. If you try and be scientific about literary criticism you will fail and so on with other disciplines including philosophy. That isn't however to say that science plays no part in philosophy. It very clearly does, it's just science is not synonymous with philosophy.
I cannot accept a Nobel laureate in Physics when he spouses Nazism. Some sort of that phrase
Makes a non-empirical and wholly subjective definition of meaning and then goes on to explain how science, and not any other type of discipline, will be able to explain the meaning of existence using a semantic argument. Meanwhile he calls philosophy useless.
*claps hands at this guy's ignorance*
Great thing about manning of existence is, we don't need to know about it to live happy and fulfilled lives.
I want a robotic avatar that will not brake, malfunction and constantly download new patches.
It's not hard to see which ideological tradition Wilson represents from how he speaks of science, religion and the Enlightenment. But essentially it seems that Wilson is suggesting that once we figure out the present and the past we can predict the probable future and that will allow us to look at the probable end result to say what was point of it all and derive meaning from that. So Wilson is a scientist with a Golden Hammer called science so he thinks that all problems are scientific problems to be solved? Isn't this just pure scientism?
"It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of - namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography"
- Nietzsche
Urgh. Says philosophy doesn't matter, starts with semantic argument. Uses logic. Typical. I hate scientists who think philosophy and culture isn't important, it just sounds ignorant because everyone has implicit, philosophical notions behind what they say. The only difference between philosophy's and other disciplines' presumptions is that in philosophy those presumptions are made explicit.
And all that is ignoring the absurdity of suggesting science can vest anything with meaning, when science has shown us the indifference and meaninglessness of the universe. It is typical, however, because in the science-centric world we live in, human beings, like this one, try to find meaning when there clearly isn't any to be found, so they implicitly change their worldview to support stupidity like "science can find meaning", without examining it.
That is not saying philosophy can do much with stuff like "philosophy of the mind" and metaphysics (which is pretty pointless), but things like ethics, personhood, aesthetics, logic, political philosophy all still have some place in discourse. Science has its place too, its just when it crosses into stuff it can't justify that it starts to sound like a bunch of pretentious scientists who don't know what they are talking about.
Meta-physics is pointless? What? The hell do you think all the scientific advancements post-Einstein were enabled by? Meta-physics. Interpretations of QM are wholly meta-physical and have been the basis for all scientific progression in the last 50years. Without meta-physics science would make no sense. Ordinary physics is grounded in meta-physical assumptions.
Ryan Hutton Ya, I suppose you are right
Philosophy is science before whatever in question becomes measurable. Philosophy is questions, science is answers. Whichever one values higher will explain the meaning of existence to them, if any meaning is to be made at all.
His theory is “trust me, some smart guys in the future will work humanity’s purpose”. Sounds like a cop out to me.
Scientists are very pragmatic and can't handle that these fundamental questions are heavily ingrained with philosophical analysis, rigourous logical arguments and also arguments from other *important* philosophers that are nescessary for broader context. Per say, if you are studying philosophy of physics studying Isaac Newton's natural philosophical conception of time and space is necessary if you are interested from the debate between absolute space and time or relative proposed by Albert Einstein.
These fundamental questions no matter what empirical authority, cannot immediately suffice it. Philosophers are grappling with these questions for millennia (especially the most brilliant one) for good reasons and most very straight-minded scientists who doesn't have any appreciations for philosophy always utterly fail to grasp these philosophical issues with open mindedness and intellectual humility.
But science does eventually hit a wall. If the topic under consideration is all-that-exists, the problem is that all-that-exists does not exist within a broader context. All-that-exists cannot even be a topic, since a "topic" is a subject under consideration by a being who is a part of a broader context.
He seems very smug and doesn't seem to understand philosophy. The interesting thing about Descartes for example is not what he thought, but how he thought, who he was and what his mind was like. What is his place in the historical development of human consciousness? I mean he was one of the most important thinkers in the early days of modern science. He came up with analytical geometry and with the idea of using mathematics in the study of nature. He was a genius and everyone can learn from him, it's not about whether he was right or wrong about this or that particular subject.
But yeah he's got a point, philosophy is declining because philosophers are doing it wrong. A lot could be said about the banality of analytical philosophy, or the obscurantism of continental philosophy, but just because we're living a kind of bad period in philosophy, doesn't mean the discipline is dead...
Of course this dichotomy between science and philosophy is a false one. He is doing philosophy, as many commentators have pointed out, when he is asking questions about the meaning of existence, but he's also doing philosophy when he's combining all these different fields (anthropology, evolutionary biology, brain science etc.) in his own way.
Meaning?
Physicalist, Materialist . . . . 'FlatLand'
Incomplete, Inadequate
response to
Meaning
🙏
In order to begin with science you need human intuition as main driver. Everything is united in some sense whether you try or not to create more separation.
There is no other meanings of life, than those, which we create ourselves
Correct. That's part of the basis of rational emotive therapy.
Great to finally see this repost.
"We will have our answers". O, so, if we take into account the entire history of the biological system we are part of, and realise that we now only experience a cultural peak, and forget that we once were pre-humans, how does this answer all our questions regarding the meaning of the universe?
This doesn't answer anything at all, rather, it raises more questions. I doubt this man has any legitimate idea what philosophy really is. I doubt too that he is well-read in the existentialist tradition. Would be fun if he started talking about that, though, and it's complications for biology.
Meaning is context dependent and man made. The more it relies on evidence and reason as a reference point the better....
People taken in by the religious stance accept a kind of semantic mistake regarding meaning and hence ask how it is possible for life to have "meaning" without God.
The answer? There is no transcendent meaning, precisely because meaning is a human construct. It still matters for us but has no reference point outside of our lives, emotions and cultures.
Similarly though, Wilson here (or the big think folks responsible for the video title) mistakenly conflate identifying scientific theories with discovering meaning.
Philosophy gets closer to meaning, especially when it inquires into the nature of meaning itself, which is significance, emotional values, sense of purpose etc.... Which, of course neuroscience may tell us more about in terms of the phenomenon of finding certain ideas or experiences "meaningful."
The deeper question that has to be addressed is how we draw the distinction between an idea or experience being meaningful and the interpretation or belief often quickly attached to it being true.
It’s hilarious to me how these scientists are so arrogant as to judge what they have so little knowledge about. This guy doesn’t even realize that science is the practical application of philosophy. He’s so ignorant yet so arrogant
I think the meaning of life is to create meaning.
woah !
This is deep
Isn't science a series of failed models? Every criticism Wilson offers applies to science equally. I'd like to see one of these "philosophy is dead" scientists to
actually demonstrate a graduate level understanding of the discipline they "know" to be obsolete. Imagine if we applied this reasoning to Newtonian Mechanics in light of Relativity & Quantum Mechanics: engineering could be classified as a pseudoscience.
Yeah...but science doesn't answer any of the really interesting questions....
What questions count as really interesting?
True understanding of the universe won't come from a Scientist nor a philosopher but likely an artist.
An artist with an understanding of each discipline, but their own perspective.
I doubt any mortal will ever come up with a "true" understanding if the universe. All we can hope to do is approximate
That is funny..
Learning all the details does not lead to an understanding of "meaning".. you should debunk yourself.. everybody knows the meaning of life. And they can't but know it
Why put philosophy in the title when you clearly mean religion?
How utterly incoherent to profess materialism, which allows only undirected purposeless "molecules in motion", and to talk about "meaning". There IS no meaning possible, Prof. Wilson ! Your worldview won't allow it.
Scientists should stop disrespecting philosophers and viceversa, academics should stop shooting their own foot.
If we’re being honest the meaning of existence is that you give your existence a meaning.
When you're a hammer, all problems look like nails, or what is it they say?
Isn't the answer to what the meaning of human existence is philosophical by definition, though? All the scientists are doing is providing more data for philosophers to try to unravel. The philosophical conclusion Wilson seems to draw is that understanding human existence is its own true meaning. But that might not be universally true...
The only meaning to life is the meaning each individual chooses to give it.
I agree 100 %
The title of this video makes me think big think doesn't understand what philosophy is
Wilson is practicing philosophy while talking about how philosophy is largely irrelevant.
Also, the fact that there are many creation theories doesn't mean that they're all false.
And the idea that human culture created God is a blind assertion.
This video in short:
1st half = bashing religion
2nd half = praising science
Conclusion to the meaning of existence = undefined
I think I could get a better answer from 4th grade child.
Science is philosophy....*facepalm
I've come across an interesting thought. Meaning is a term. for the intention of a creation by the creator. If a blacksmith makes a horse shoe with the intention of shoeing a horse, the meaning of that horse shoe is to shoe a horse. So asking what is our meaning is a round about way of asking if an intelligent designer had intention upon our creation. If not, then life is meaningless. I sound like a creationist, right? Well you would be wrong. Just like children who were accidents, without an
This seems positivist. To a true sceptic he can never be right in what he is saying and it seems not plausible to think that science as way of answering the question of human existance. When trying to answer such questions even scientists really talk the language of philosophy because there are no scientific method of answering "why" questions.
touting a pulitzer prize these days like touting the prom king and queen as societal game changers. A popularity contest is nothing to be proud of.
I am sorry, but people like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins need to stick to their speciality. They can't seem to agree even on basics such as the unit of selection, so their unnecessary talk of philosophy is not very helpful.
jeansdude logical contradictions contained within bad philosophies masqeruading (labeled and sold) as "science" is their speciality. They make a lot of money with it, these philosophers calling eachother scientists for a bit more than a century.
From wiki regarding the word "scientist":
Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".
English *philosopher* and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...
Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated-chemist, mathematician, naturalist-the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.
if he wasn't so philosophically inedpt then maybe he would realise how much of a joke this video is. you need to undestand the question before you ask it, or before you profess your answer to it.
A man who seems to have not read a single word of historical philosophy attempts to speak of philosophy and even attempts to dismiss it entirely.
Life is the meaning of life. Nothing will explain the meaning of life. Everything is explaining the meaning of life every moment of time. There is only one moment of time, the present. There is no truth without contradictions. Life is.
"generally speaking after you've gone past the basic religious definition of meaning, which is of course: "*The divine creator *is responsible for the design and nature of humanity and what else do you want to know?" , there; a notion, dare I say a common induction fallacy in the Western world that *the* overall religious definition of meaning is in teleology via a creator deity. Seriously,are there not more ppl who have a deep grip of panentheism/unitheism or panetheism who can be brought onto "big think"?.
It caught my attention how Mr. Wilson said" I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works.". I'm going to assume he means this of the models made in Western philosophy and it's mostly "academic home"; I'm curious to see if anyone with a thorough grip of "Eastern religions" in the conceptual AND social manifestations of them, would care to say if Dharmic and maybe Daoic religions as well are any closer in their respective models of the mind to what modern neurosci says--though this might be a question more suited to Sam Harris. To bad he didn't go into talking about phenomology or integral theory.
The five fields .E.O. mentioned:molecular bio,archaeology, paleontology,brain sci and A.I. I have a feeling that most ppl think about the "objects" of those fields (the cells,the artifacts,bones,cells and robots) and neglect the super important mathematics underlying them. I'm thinking esp. about the "automated reasoning" used in A.I. I wouldn't dismiss physicists out of the project; you might not find astrophyscists handy but what about bio- or even chemophysics?.
The way he's talking,things sound cool and all but I *>~< REALLY* hope no one blunders into far-reaching conclusions that are like the old Social Darwinist nonsense--but d--- it,if anyone with thoughts of turning the info on human origins into tech (or I'm more wary of:marketing) ends up trying to justify that old junk with new info "-_- --b/c part of me is hoping that somewhere along the way of science trying to get a fuller picture of "the story of humanity" the significance of altruism won't be neglected. As will some factor that can be described as "all-inclusion";love.
Neuroscience, Evolutionary Pscyhology, Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Anthropology (Paleoanthro), and Astrobiology are the disciplines that tell us where we came from and who we are. I think they do give us meaning. Next artificial intelligence and robotics can tell us where we are going and give us future purpose.
E.O. Wilson: Science, Not Philosophy, Will Explain the Meaning of Existence.
Philosophy and art, through out the history of civilization, have made us relate through emotion and thought to the eternal questions of life, way more then science has so far. It has been a constant dialogue, and hopefully it will stay such. Without humanities, we will be doomed to world much like in the movie Wall-E.
And, also he thinks that Hollywood knows a good story when it sees one.... That`s where I stopped taking him seriously...
this guy is trolling us
On God.
What if the meaning of life is NOT to find out the meaning? -Philosophical question
"meaning" is illusory.
Psychology and Sociology would have it's say also. We have a growing understanding of the intersection between what is instinct, our natural patterns of thought, and what is learned, from a cultural point of view. This understanding through research, combined with neuroscience (where and how our thoughts and consciousness arise in the brain) reveals how and why we think the way we do. This will help explain the meaning of life. It might not seem glamorous to describe meaning as an emergent property of being a primate, but even consciousness can now be defined as an emergent condition in the animal kingdom. We need to ask these questions without the biases of our ego, prior assigned meanings, and most importantly without importing metaphysics.
Science is and always has been a branch of philosophy. It may be the most popular branch, but at the end of the day the scientific method is just one more philosophy. Should the method prove to be false, it will be the philosophers that find an even more effective means to discover and confirm the reality of information. I'm not saying science is wrong, its just that we should never forget that it has always been a type of philosophy.
Philosophers shouldn't feel threatened, but rather rejoyce in the knowledge that they will be able to discuss new and perhaps more relevant topics. As long as there is questions we can't answer factually, there will be philosophy.
Philosophy can be useful, but it can be misused easily..like In the case of religion. in order for something to be predictable and effective result. U need science. without that, u can basically argue anything with philosophy.
You can argue anything with Science too... It's called pseudo-science. Thing is, no respectable scientist is going to believe you.
Similarly as much as you can pretend that you have philosophical justifications for believing in a personal God, unless you've got something REALLY interesting to say and better than 80% the theists that I meet no philosopher is going to believe you. That's why the statement "God doesn't exist is true" is one of the few things philosophers have a consensus above 75% on.
Meaning of human existence for me: Grow better and positively influence.
Nature itself answers all your questions .
First , the fact that mankind questions its existence is the key .
I don't believe any other species on earth does this ?
They are complete , and perfect as to existing .
It is mankind that asks , why do we exist ?
This means we see a different future , one where we are better or more complete and comfortable with our place in existence .
The fact that we view ourselves as different is clouding our view of just being out of tune with the whole of existence or universe .
Our limiting ourselves to the brain as a commander or seat of everything , we are not taking into account that the brain isn't just in our sculls , everything about us is just an extension of our brain , our senses , our nervous system , is still our brain , just spread out over our physical body .
Our growth as an entity is only done by pain , without pain we become weak , and don't toughen up ourselves .
Our exploits into artificial intelligence is only another extension of our brain .
To throw in evolution , we see that many attempts at life were tried here ie. dinosaurs , mammoths , cro-magnon .
What we don't see is that we aren't from an ancestor , but an accumulation of species of a common ancestor , reptilian , mammalian , fish and foul , all with a common design .
Two eyes , two ears , one nose , one head , one mouth and one sphincter .
Thank you .
It has been said, even to reject the philosophy you must hold philosophy. As long as I see it, a philosopher is much higher than a scientist. He watches the totality and essence, even in the midst of human thought and its validity. These are things which a scientist generally does not deal with them.
All philosophy does is muddy the waters of science. In my opinion philosophy is just a hiding place for gods that do not exist. Given no god does exist, philosophy is a hiding place for all gods.
There are philosophers atheists. There is no connection. If philosophy leads people to believe, equally science can lead to faith. It is a matter of the discretion of each individual.faceious2006
Moti Ben Shalom You said "equally science can lead to faith". Given the foundation of which all science is established is evidence, faith is belief absent evidence, how in the world can science lead to faith?
faceious2006
facts can lead to faith. and faith can lead to facts. read about this.its a little deep but you will find.
Moti Ben Shalom I am almost 40 years old and live in the deep southern united states. I have heard every argument/rationalization for god 1000 times 1000 different ways. So what are you talking about?
The humanities are like colorful peacock feathers--displays that evolved by sexual selection that add beauty to our lives. Music, philosophy, dance, art are there to be enjoyed and we're lucky to have them, even though as Wilson argues they don't lead to the kind of knowledge that science gives us.
Lol, philosophy gave us all of science. It is the womb of science
So. Many. Holes. In the chain of reasoning…
There isn't a meaning to existence.
Prove it
Are you saying there is not ONE meaning of life?
Moral relativity is a lie.
Tomacity(Rast) Explain?
Ibrahim Philo No need :)
Find the meaning of a cat, rat, dog or any other animal/living organism and you will find the meaning of your own existance.
The meaning of existence is to help the universe push the boundaries of creation, using consciousness, which is something it could create using the constants that it had access to.
All effort is ignorence, I'm of to the pub
Without philosophy there would be no science and without science there'd be only philosophers.
It's ridiculous how people skip the more rational question "is there a meaning?" and just ask "what is the meaning?"
There's few things that annoy me more than people feeling entitled to some objective meaning to their existance in this universe.
Is it really so hard for people to just accept not having a meaning and enjoy their existance while they can? "The meaning of life" is an absurd, childish, primitive fantasy and we should get over it already.
As for the video itself (with all due respect), he simply redefined the word "meaning" then listed various sciences that are supposed to tell us what this "meaning" is, without explaining how.
I never thought about that, your comment kind of enlightened me a little haha
If there is no meaning then isn't everyone just wasting their time?
Mark Scott "wasting" implies there could be something more productive to spend time in... if there's no meaning, it is not a waste of time, it just doesn't matters, anything would...
There's no way you can make statements such as "X can't do Y, Z can however" without coming across as a little bit elitist or snobby.
Or simply wrong and making a fool of yourself.
Wilson has a reported IQ of 123. Now the measurements have changed somewhat, but not by that much. I'd like to hear more on this topic from people with two digit IQ and some above genius levels. I've spent the majority of my life naturally withdrawing to philosophize any topic that caught my interest. For me the uses of philosophy is very much needed, especially if used in tandem with people who are purely driven by science and rationality. I have a higher IQ and tend to be irrational and all over the place, I need people to bring me back down and collect my thoughts for me. Applied to science, I believe that a healthy ratio of all these factors is needed. Too much rationality and you might not extend far enough to find new angles. Too much philosophy and you become irratic and many things remain inconclusive.
One thing I do know for sure is that if nobody asked the big questions there would be no science to give definitive answers.
If we created a robot that could exactly emulate every single process that our own human brain could do, to the point where it could feel, learn, be self aware, and use all senses, would it still be a robot?
Lack of one maybe. Science doesn't give us meaning. We give us meaning.
People who look outward to find a meaning to their existence just seem silly.
The other day I heard the term "scientism" for the first time. Now I have an example to go with it. It's interesting that Wilson skipped over the philosophy of Nietzsche and particularly of Heidegger.
Science explains 'how' things work, not 'why' but the 'how' can help us with the 'why'. The thing is meaning is ultimately a subjective experience, there is no ultimate meaning/purpose, a wooden toy can be a livelihood, a distraction, entertainment, or firewood, a hammer can be a tool but also a weapon, you cannot determine any objective meaning, in fact 'objective meaning' is an oxymoron. What is the purpose of human life? There are billions of answers for that and no amount of data will ever show one to be the ultimate answer.
Why does there have to be a meaning? Is believing we're all just byproducts of randomness in the universe too scary to grasp?
No, just too stupid to be respected.
What if assigning MEANING to our existence is just a way to make ourselves feel more significant than we really are? I'd bet he doesn't favor Astrophysics because, based on all observable evidence, our existence has NO inherent meaning. We simply exist. When the body dies, consciousness ceases, and our atoms return to the universal whole...which in and of itself is actually pretty cool. An extraordinary few have made contributions that will affect the world (and possibly beyond) for countless generations, but for the most part in universal terms, we matter little...if at all.
One could argue that the lessons we teach our children contribute to the cumulative shaping of the future, but then at best each individual is merely a drop in the ocean. Moreover, even if we do contribute thus, most will never live to see any significant result, and those who DO see it will have long since forgotten about individual ancestral contributions.
As such, I ask this. As long as one's existence is not detrimental to the survival of one's fellow beings, what's wrong with accepting universal meaninglessness?
You can't get an Ought from an Is, but you certainly can get a Why. The 'goal' of (most) life (forms) is to reproduce and learn (DNA learns about its environment with each successive generation - that's what evolution is after all). However, the goal/purpose of life is NOT the same thing as the Meaning of Life. It appears each individual life form must choose its own 'meaning' - this is highly subjective so science (which focuses on the objective) has limited scope in aiding this choice.
Just as god intended.
Meaning is an informational construct, and is user definable. "One person's junk is another person's treasure." Thus you don't need to look for it you can create it. So if you need science to bring meaning in to your life, ok. I am a big fan, but I don't need it to tell me what should be meaningful, I will decide that for myself thank you very much.
The nihilism is strong in this comment section. Humans will never figure everything out. We're really the joke of the cosmos.. All our hot air talks about how advanced we are... Cancer is still kicking our ass and a giant asteroid still poses a high threat. The category should be 'comedy' for this worthless video.
Science will be able to explain what Humanity 'is', both past, present, and future. Philosophy will be able to explain whom we 'are', as a species known as humans. The meaning of existence will be dependant on your point of view. If you want to "feel" whom you are (which is more sensible since quantum mechanics of variable infinity would never be able to be fully understood within your life) you'll always lean towards Philosophy. If you want to clutch, you'll seek answers from the external world to better make sense of a deep internal paradox.
Just remember one thing... There's no use in having if you don't appreciate.
Sahil Zubair I think, with all due respect, that you didn't understand what I was talking about.
EO Wilson's philosophy - very much a product of culture
It really irks me when ignorant people dismiss philosophy as unimportant or useless. They don't realize that philosophy is probably the single most important field there is when it comes to driving the progress of humankind.
I believe that philosophers arguing against him are looking at this wrong. Philosophy indeed will not answer the meaning of existence, because philosophy consists of asking pertinent questions, and discussing context. It does not find objective answers, because that's not the point. Science, however, seeks to answer questions by adding together all possible evidence. There's not a real conflict. It's just a misunderstanding of roles.
I think I cracked it while on psylocilbin:
Science can explain our meaning: evolution prioritizes survival and procreation. Our meaning from that perspective is to improve existence for our next generations, to improve the world so they are more successful than we are.
That's how our ancestor fish moved to land, to survive and reproduce.
And it's how we can find peace and enjoy our morals, our evolved culture, and our day-to-day life: make the future better for our kids, and they can make it even better for theirs, and so on.
We've been distracted through all of human history. So make the world better for the next generation. It's why we're here.
That's not really the point of philosophy, the point is in finding the right way of thinking and finding the right questions to ask.
Well, Buddhism is the only religion that doesn't have a creation or a creator.
Life is eternal so it doesn't have a start neither an ending.
The pinnacle of the Buddhist teaching is the Lotus Sutra and the faith that is required to get enlightenment is the faith in your inner buddahood.
🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
philosophy questions, but science provides the answers. i agree with that.
Would science not have already done so? i.e. existence to pass on genes/existence for survival alone.
He makes interesting points, but I don't agree with the tittle of this talk.
Science- Systematic knowledge of the PHYSICAL or MATERIAL world gained through observation and experimentation.
Philosophy- Rational investigation of the truths and principles of conduct, being, or knowledge.
So in other words, science is seeking TANGIBLE facts and physical laws, while philosophy is seeking ABSTRACT meaning and conduct. I believe both are necessary for a meaning to life. You need a bed of TANGIBLE facts that are produced through science as foundation to rationally synthesize an ABSTRACT meaning to life. They are dependent on one another in this case.
My personal opinion is that the meaning to life is 42...
The only other thing I want to mention is about his comment that sounded something like " philosophy is going down hill. " This bugged me. One reason is that as the gradual increase of technology arises from science, furthering human capabilities and globalization, moral philosophy will need to be practiced to keep these new possibilities in check and on an ethical path.
Geah... did this guy study any Philo? Like seriously we're not in a Cartesian mode anymore, some are, but most have moved on since the Linguistic turn. I mean, I'm just an undergrad but as far as I can tell Wittgenstein kind of fixed all the kinds of problems this guy's talking about. Plus how he's talking about A.I. makes me think he's not grasping the problems they're running into (as far as true artificial intelligence). And what is he going on about "knowing the history means we won't be inquisitive"? If I were to read a book from beginning to finish I would still have the same questions about what it meant if I had just started reading near the end, sure I'm better equipped to ask the questions, but I still have the questions. I'll always have the questions. Philo will never be obsolete, even if you consider it a luxury like art or music, it will never become obsolete.
Don't deny that having children is a choice, and not an imperative. Therefore, there's a reason/meaning for your kids. You assume that philosophy ONLY tries to answer questions about the past. Well, it also tries to answer questions about the future. We might not know the past reason/meaning of life, but we most certainly do know the reason why we have children. The future meaning for/of life, is defined by us. And science cannot answer that.