(Incidentally, I’m confused about what the link to Homophoria is supposed to prove, He self describes as a computer engineer, not a philosopher. He says “philosophers rolled their eyes”, but supplies no evidence.
Was it supposed to.relate to something else, eg. The Hard Problem?
If so his claim:-
The hard problem of consciousness persists because it assumes consciousness is something added to physical processes
Is a mistake. The HP persists because there is no reductive explanation of qualia. Nonphysicalism is a conclusion, not an assumption)
Why does philosophy seem uniquely resistant to progress?
We have not established that philosophy is uniquely resistant, as opposed to facing uniquely difficult challenges.
The reason is structural. It is because philosophy operates without material constraints. It does not matter if it’s wrong – no bridges collapse, no governments fall, no rockets explode, no patients die. There is no penalty in philosophy for error and no internal forcing function that compels resolution
No material constraints doesn’t mean no constraints.
Philosophy has at least abandoned various theories and projects over centuries. For instance , they lost interest in logical positivism after noticing that it was asked refuting. And notice that “theories should not be contradictory , self refuting or paradoxical” is an example of a non material constraint.
This is a very rich response. Thank you. I’ll pick up the final point, as I think that’s the core (correct me if I’m wrong). The key word in my article is ‘material constraints’. Logical positivism split into other forms, but that didn’t generate closure. It just reframed the problem. Engineers converge on solutions because if they don’t the bridge collapses. But there is no convergence on moral realism etc.
I think this is directionally correct, in that Philosophy doesn’t actually settle things, but still overly harsh towards Philosophy in various ways.
As in, ignored it? I’ve been able to Google up some reactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
https://blog.uehiro.ox.ac.uk/2022/06/cross-post-is-googles-lamda-conscious-a-philosophers-view/
https://daily-philosophy.com/sentient-ai-lemoine-lamda/
https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2022/06/ai-sentience-and-moral-risk/ (Dustin crummett)
(Incidentally, I’m confused about what the link to Homophoria is supposed to prove, He self describes as a computer engineer, not a philosopher. He says “philosophers rolled their eyes”, but supplies no evidence.
Was it supposed to.relate to something else, eg. The Hard Problem?
If so his claim:-
Is a mistake. The HP persists because there is no reductive explanation of qualia. Nonphysicalism is a conclusion, not an assumption)
We have not established that philosophy is uniquely resistant, as opposed to facing uniquely difficult challenges.
No material constraints doesn’t mean no constraints.
Philosophy has at least abandoned various theories and projects over centuries. For instance , they lost interest in logical positivism after noticing that it was asked refuting. And notice that “theories should not be contradictory , self refuting or paradoxical” is an example of a non material constraint.
This is a very rich response. Thank you. I’ll pick up the final point, as I think that’s the core (correct me if I’m wrong). The key word in my article is ‘material constraints’. Logical positivism split into other forms, but that didn’t generate closure. It just reframed the problem. Engineers converge on solutions because if they don’t the bridge collapses. But there is no convergence on moral realism etc.