Hawking vs. Philosophy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

BiscuitTrouser:

SimpleThunda':

The only thing science has ever done is make living different. I wouldn't even say better.

You do realise "Science" by definition is merely identifying, recording and predicting basic cause and effect?

People seem to assume "Science" is only super complex stuff like medicine. Tea was scientifically discovered. As was ALL food. As was cooking. As was fire.

EVERYTHING and anything is technically science. And by your definition its not "Better" to live without fire naked in a wood hunting with your hands than it is for you right now to be on this website using technology developed by science sitting on a chair designed by science on a carpet ALSO totally dependent on science.

Literally every physical discovery ever was science. All of them. Even serendipity, since the original event must have been repeated and the cause and effect action identified. Living feral for about 20 years max naked without ever feeling the heat of fire or the warmth of a structure definitely seems worse to me. But if you argue it isnt i argue why have you chosen this fate over all other "different" lifestyles that involve less science.

I think science is infinitely more important than philosophy (Modern philosophy at any rate). I dont really care why we are here. I dont mind. It deals with concepts that are, at best, personal guesses or assumptions based on extremely limited information to reach a worldview that we can function in without becoming insane. I dont know enough about the universe to reason things like "Why are we here". I endevour to find out more about our universe. And finding out iiiiiss..... SCIENCE :D

I doubt the primitive man missed any kind of technology we have now. We didn't need it. The only reason we think it's necessary to have it, is because we're used to it. Does a wild bear need a cozy fire or a log cabin? No. Why? He doesn't need it.

By saying "EVERYTHING IS SCIENCE" you're just blatantly missing the point.

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

Science (technology) never made the world a better place. Only a worse one.
It made living "more convenient" for some, it made it hell for others.

Infinitely striving for more and more, eventually dying and never having thought of the reasons why is just a waste of a lifetime.

Seems to me that the guy in the video's opinions are fairly valid, but he isn't trained in speaking so he can't explain himself as well as the three philosophers can. Additionally, they don't seem to let him speak.

"Science is ethics free"
"Then how do you tell the difference between good and bad science?"
The words 'good' and 'bad' aren't denoters of ethical value in this regard, but the philosophers twist it to be so, not allowing the scientist time to explain that they're misunderstanding the concept. Good science is merely science that is effective in explaining the world around us, bad science is science that isn't effective at that.

Still, I don't consider philosophy to be dead.
You can think about whatever stuff you like and call it philosophy. It's demonstrably alive.

SimpleThunda':

I doubt the primitive man missed any kind of technology we have now. We didn't need it. The only reason we think it's necessary to have it, is because we're used to it. Does a wild bear need a cozy fire or a log cabin? No. Why? He doesn't need it.

By saying "EVERYTHING IS SCIENCE" you're just blatantly missing the point.

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

Science (technology) never made the world a better place. Only a worse one.
It made living "more convenient" for some, it made it hell for others.

Infinitely striving for more and more, eventually dying and never having thought of the reasons why is just a waste of a lifetime.

You ignored my question. Iceland and Greenland are places with much wilderness. Why are you here rather than there? Why do you stick to a technology fueled lifestyle if you feel so strongly about it, the wilderness is right out there and your clothes can come RIGHT off with a simple tug. You could be running free naked and wild in a matter of days if you catch a plane.

I cant argue with it being a waste since thats your opinion. That said im going to be a Doctor anyway and love every damn second of a well used life.

SimpleThunda':

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

So I take it you see no need for vaccines against polio, smallpox, or the flu? You don't see any benefit to pacemakers and artificial valves? Nothing gained from the ability to remove brain tumors? Or an inflamed appendix? The knowledge that microscopic organisms lead to illness--and that washing hands greatly reduces the chances of those organisms infecting us--is useless to you?

Sure, SOME people could do without the advancements of the past few thousand years. But without those advancements millions, if not billions, would be dead.

Science (technology) never made the world a better place. Only a worse one.

That claim rings rather hollow when said over the internet on a forum dedicated to video games.

It made living "more convenient" for some, it made it hell for others.

Alright: how is the standard of living in poorer regions of the world today worse than the standard of living of primitive humans?

BiscuitTrouser:

SimpleThunda':

I doubt the primitive man missed any kind of technology we have now. We didn't need it. The only reason we think it's necessary to have it, is because we're used to it. Does a wild bear need a cozy fire or a log cabin? No. Why? He doesn't need it.

By saying "EVERYTHING IS SCIENCE" you're just blatantly missing the point.

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

Science (technology) never made the world a better place. Only a worse one.
It made living "more convenient" for some, it made it hell for others.

Infinitely striving for more and more, eventually dying and never having thought of the reasons why is just a waste of a lifetime.

You ignored my question. Iceland and Greenland are places with much wilderness. Why are you here rather than there? Why do you stick to a technology fueled lifestyle if you feel so strongly about it, the wilderness is right out there and your clothes can come RIGHT off with a simple tug. You could be running free naked and wild in a matter of days if you catch a plane.

I cant argue with it being a waste since thats your opinion. That said im going to be a Doctor anyway and love every damn second of a well used life.

I actually have aspirations to go survival/hunting in the Norwegian forests for a while, but not for all that long, because I can't leave my loved ones behind.

BrassButtons:

SimpleThunda':

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

So I take it you see no need for vaccines against polio, smallpox, or the flu? You don't see any benefit to pacemakers and artificial valves? Nothing gained from the ability to remove brain tumors? Or an inflamed appendix? The knowledge that microscopic organisms lead to illness--and that washing hands greatly reduces the chances of those organisms infecting us--is useless to you?

Sure, SOME people could do without the advancements of the past few thousand years. But without those advancements millions, if not billions, would be dead.

I see no need for all that, no.
And the truth is, your average human doesn't need it either.

And without those advancements millions, if not billions, would not be dead.
Without a doubt technology has been used to take as much life as it has given.

SimpleThunda':

BrassButtons:

SimpleThunda':

If you're going to argue that, though, I'll say that we could do without everything science came up with over the last 2000 years. Bah. Make it 3000, perhaps even 4000. Fire and fur to live through an ice age. More we never needed.

So I take it you see no need for vaccines against polio, smallpox, or the flu? You don't see any benefit to pacemakers and artificial valves? Nothing gained from the ability to remove brain tumors? Or an inflamed appendix? The knowledge that microscopic organisms lead to illness--and that washing hands greatly reduces the chances of those organisms infecting us--is useless to you?

Sure, SOME people could do without the advancements of the past few thousand years. But without those advancements millions, if not billions, would be dead.

I see no need for all that, no.
And the truth is, your average human doesn't need it either.

And without those advancements millions, if not billions, would not be dead.
Without a doubt technology has been used to take as much life as it has given.

This debate has veered off philosophy V Science somewhat. Anyway your point that billions wouldn't have died is wrong. Mostly, they wouldn't have been born, population expansion only possible because of technological developments in food production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

As you can see the casualties as a proportion of global population doesn't change much, and is arguably a lot higher the further back in time you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Evolution_and_aging_rate

From this, up until 100 years ago you had a good point, life expectancy was fairly stable. but then we science'd it so now people enjoy longer lives. I don't know about you, but I'd rather my kids had a life expectancy of a lot better than 30 years.

Also, regarding your point about 'never having thought of reasons why' technology has allowed us to enjoy much more leisure time than ever before, and has allowed information and ideas to be transferred faster and with greater volume than ever before. So technology has given our generation more opportunity to follow your definition of a 'worthwhile life' than any other generation in history.

Now arguably people squander this opportunity, but that's not the fault of the technology. No one is forced to watch cats chasing lasers, and if you want to ponder and discuss the secrets of the universe, then you have more tools to do so than any of your ancestors.

SimpleThunda':

I actually have aspirations to go survival/hunting in the Norwegian forests for a while, but not for all that long, because I can't leave my loved ones behind.

Perhaps a device could allow you to contact them from far away places so you could live wild and still be able to talk to them.

Realitycrash:
If we manage to find sufficient evidence, or create a decent enough theory, then we really can turn 'science' into 'ethics', since Natural Property A will mean 'What is right', per definition.

How? Just because people do or think certain things, whether because of a natural property or otherwise, doesn't make them 'right'. The propriety of identifying Natural Property A with "what is right" would be entirely dependent on philosophical assumptions: to do so would be presupposing an ethics.

ClockworkPenguin:

SimpleThunda':

BrassButtons:

So I take it you see no need for vaccines against polio, smallpox, or the flu? You don't see any benefit to pacemakers and artificial valves? Nothing gained from the ability to remove brain tumors? Or an inflamed appendix? The knowledge that microscopic organisms lead to illness--and that washing hands greatly reduces the chances of those organisms infecting us--is useless to you?

Sure, SOME people could do without the advancements of the past few thousand years. But without those advancements millions, if not billions, would be dead.

I see no need for all that, no.
And the truth is, your average human doesn't need it either.

And without those advancements millions, if not billions, would not be dead.
Without a doubt technology has been used to take as much life as it has given.

This debate has veered off philosophy V Science somewhat. Anyway your point that billions wouldn't have died is wrong. Mostly, they wouldn't have been born, population expansion only possible because of technological developments in food production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

As you can see the casualties as a proportion of global population doesn't change much, and is arguably a lot higher the further back in time you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Evolution_and_aging_rate

From this, up until 100 years ago you had a good point, life expectancy was fairly stable. but then we science'd it so now people enjoy longer lives. I don't know about you, but I'd rather my kids had a life expectancy of a lot better than 30 years.

Also, regarding your point about 'never having thought of reasons why' technology has allowed us to enjoy much more leisure time than ever before, and has allowed information and ideas to be transferred faster and with greater volume than ever before. So technology has given our generation more opportunity to follow your definition of a 'worthwhile life' than any other generation in history.

Now arguably people squander this opportunity, but that's not the fault of the technology. No one is forced to watch cats chasing lasers, and if you want to ponder and discuss the secrets of the universe, then you have more tools to do so than any of your ancestors.

"A worthwhile life".

A rather philosophical statement.

A worthwhile life for whom? The person living it?

A person that lived 2000 years ago would probably think of himself as having lived a worthwhile life.
Even without 2000 years of science. Would you argue that that wasn't a life worth living?

Would you argue that a caveman didn't live a worthwhile life?
Would the caveman agree with you?

You base the worth of life on life expectancy, superficial knowledge, comfort and leisure time?

Let's turn it around.

Let's base the worth of life on how much of the earth it consumes.

The caveman consumed just about as much as he gave back. He was pretty much an animal and pretty much in balance.

The modern man consumes. And consumes. And consumes. And never really gets to the giving back-part.

All the things science creates destroy just as much.

Science is using up the earth. Science made modern society, which is more sick and twisted than it has ever been.

Point at almost anything science has made and I'll point towards the people or animals it made to suffer.

Science really isn't such a great thing in human hands.

SimpleThunda':

"A worthwhile life".

A rather philosophical statement.

A worthwhile life for whom? The person living it?

A person that lived 2000 years ago would probably think of himself as having lived a worthwhile life.
Even without 2000 years of science. Would you argue that that wasn't a life worth living?

Would you argue that a caveman didn't live a worthwhile life?
Would the caveman agree with you?

You base the worth of life on life expectancy, superficial knowledge, comfort and leisure time?

Let's turn it around.

Let's base the worth of life on how much of the earth it consumes.

The caveman consumed just about as much as he gave back. He was pretty much an animal and pretty much in balance.

The modern man consumes. And consumes. And consumes. And never really gets to the giving back-part.

All the things science creates destroy just as much.

Science is using up the earth. Science made modern society, which is more sick and twisted than it has ever been.

Point at almost anything science has made and I'll point towards the people or animals it made to suffer.

Science really isn't such a great thing in human hands.

It is a philosophical statement, which I was basing off this comment here :

Infinitely striving for more and more, eventually dying and never having thought of the reasons why is just a waste of a lifetime.

I inferred from the statement that life is 'a waste' if one 'never has a thought of the reasons why' (reasons why is a fairly fuzzy term, but I interpreted it as referring philosophical or exploratory thought) that therefore a life gains worth based on the amount of philosophising/exploring/discovering done.

That being so, the potential for a person to live such a life is greater now thanks to modern technology than it has been at any other point in human history.

It was your argument that led to those conclusions. You obviously realised this which is why you are now 'moving the goalposts' and suggesting that we rate the 'worthiness' of a life based on how little net resources it consumes. Which I reject because its kind of meaningless and leads to the paradoxical conclusion that life was more worthwhile before life existed.

These where after all 'cavemen' who lived so sustainably that the wiped out the Neanderthals and expanded into their land. You don't move somewhere with extra competition unless there is pressure to do so, suggesting that maybe, they weren't living as sustainably as you seem to think.

ClockworkPenguin:

SimpleThunda':

"A worthwhile life".

A rather philosophical statement.

A worthwhile life for whom? The person living it?

A person that lived 2000 years ago would probably think of himself as having lived a worthwhile life.
Even without 2000 years of science. Would you argue that that wasn't a life worth living?

Would you argue that a caveman didn't live a worthwhile life?
Would the caveman agree with you?

You base the worth of life on life expectancy, superficial knowledge, comfort and leisure time?

Let's turn it around.

Let's base the worth of life on how much of the earth it consumes.

The caveman consumed just about as much as he gave back. He was pretty much an animal and pretty much in balance.

The modern man consumes. And consumes. And consumes. And never really gets to the giving back-part.

All the things science creates destroy just as much.

Science is using up the earth. Science made modern society, which is more sick and twisted than it has ever been.

Point at almost anything science has made and I'll point towards the people or animals it made to suffer.

Science really isn't such a great thing in human hands.

It is a philosophical statement, which I was basing off this comment here :

Infinitely striving for more and more, eventually dying and never having thought of the reasons why is just a waste of a lifetime.

I inferred from the statement that life is 'a waste' if one 'never has a thought of the reasons why' (reasons why is a fairly fuzzy term, but I interpreted it as referring philosophical or exploratory thought) that therefore a life gains worth based on the amount of philosophising/exploring/discovering done.

That being so, the potential for a person to live such a life is greater now thanks to modern technology than it has been at any other point in human history.

It was your argument that led to those conclusions. You obviously realised this which is why you are now 'moving the goalposts' and suggesting that we rate the 'worthiness' of a life based on how little net resources it consumes. Which I reject because its kind of meaningless and leads to the paradoxical conclusion that life was more worthwhile before life existed.

These where after all 'cavemen' who lived so sustainably that the wiped out the Neanderthals and expanded into their land. You don't move somewhere with extra competition unless there is pressure to do so, suggesting that maybe, they weren't living as sustainably as you seem to think.

You do not need science (atleast not in the scale as we do now) to philosophize. No such thing as "moving the goalposts" was done. The ancient greeks knew how to philosophize. Probably mankind did it way, way before them, but simply wasn't yet able to write it down. Technology and philosophy are completely seperate things.

Life was by no means more worthwhile before it existed, because for a long time humans lived as a part of nature. A part which gave and took. It furfilled a role in the ecosystem.

Species fighting for survival is also a part of nature.
Primitive man wiping out the neanderthals is just a matter of survival of the fittest.

SimpleThunda':

You do not need science (atleast not in the scale as we do now) to philosophize. No such thing as "moving the goalposts" was done. The ancient greeks knew how to philosophize. Probably mankind did it way, way before them, but simply wasn't yet able to write it down. Technology and philosophy are completely seperate things.

Life was by no means more worthwhile before it existed, because for a long time humans lived as a part of nature. A part which gave and took. It furfilled a role in the ecosystem.

Species fighting for survival is also a part of nature.
Primitive man wiping out the neanderthals is just a matter of survival of the fittest.

You don't need technology, but the modern technology we have increases our opportunity for such activity, by granting us extra leisure time, and improving means of discourse and idea/information sharing. It should be noted, that the Greeks enjoyed a lot of leisure time in which to philosophise, in part because their society used slave labour. What technology has done, is democratise information.

You moved the goalposts when you laid out one definition of worthwhile living and then substituted another when the first one worked against your main argument.

The fact that we wiped out neanderthals wasn't a condemnation (although it was a dick move), but evidence that they where not 'living as part of nature'. There would be no need to expand into neandethal territory, with all the dangers and risks of increased competition for the same resources, if we had been living sustainably in the land we already occupied.

Furthermore, if it is acceptable to wipe out a fairly intelligent species as 'a matter of survival of the fittest' then why is it wrong to improve our quality of life at the expense of changing the environment as a whole?
Because it could lead to our own destruction? It probably wont, and if anything will stop it, science will.
Because it is playing God? Why the hell shouldn't we.

ClockworkPenguin:

SimpleThunda':

You do not need science (atleast not in the scale as we do now) to philosophize. No such thing as "moving the goalposts" was done. The ancient greeks knew how to philosophize. Probably mankind did it way, way before them, but simply wasn't yet able to write it down. Technology and philosophy are completely seperate things.

Life was by no means more worthwhile before it existed, because for a long time humans lived as a part of nature. A part which gave and took. It furfilled a role in the ecosystem.

Species fighting for survival is also a part of nature.
Primitive man wiping out the neanderthals is just a matter of survival of the fittest.

You don't need technology, but the modern technology we have increases our opportunity for such activity, by granting us extra leisure time, and improving means of discourse and idea/information sharing. It should be noted, that the Greeks enjoyed a lot of leisure time in which to philosophise, in part because their society used slave labour. What technology has done, is democratise information.

You moved the goalposts when you laid out one definition of worthwhile living and then substituted another when the first one worked against your main argument.

The fact that we wiped out neanderthals wasn't a condemnation (although it was a dick move), but evidence that they where not 'living as part of nature'. There would be no need to expand into neandethal territory, with all the dangers and risks of increased competition for the same resources, if we had been living sustainably in the land we already occupied.

Furthermore, if it is acceptable to wipe out a fairly intelligent species as 'a matter of survival of the fittest' then why is it wrong to improve our quality of life at the expense of changing the environment as a whole?
Because it could lead to our own destruction? It probably wont, and if anything will stop it, science will.
Because it is playing God? Why the hell shouldn't we.

The two definitions I gave for a worthwhile life, if even such a thing exists, are not necessarily seperate thing.
A balanced life with room for deep self-reflection is, in my opinion, the best way to live a life.
No goalposts were moved.

Us wiping out the neanderthals was survival of the fittest.
It was a matter of the strong wiping out the weak, because the weak possessed what the strong needed to survive.

If a species of wolves wiped out a species of deer, would they stop being a part of nature? Ofcourse not.
That's survival of the fittest, which is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of nature and evolution.

Humanity is prepared to do horrific things, not just to survive, but to "improve the quality of her life".
Not only is she prepared to milk the earth dry of all it has, but she's also prepared to make both animals and humans endure incredible suffering for her comfort. It's utterly disgusting to see what humanity is capable of "for her comfort".

That's where a part of philosophy comes in.
To get a realistic image of what the hell we're actually doing.

Is Philosophy dead? No. But I do think that science is more useful. Especially to find something, anything out. I personally am of opinion that if you can't prove or disprove something, it has no use in the real world. And if you can, it means the scientific method can be used to determine the correct answer. Doesn't mean we can get the correct answer with today's science. But in the future we'll surely be able to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked