Uncovering the dark reality behind science's flagship philosophy makes us question whether we actually want AI to have the same values as those who build it.
Jàchym, I have no answers, but definitely more questions. Diving into more awareness of Physicalism has been very enriching to me. I would love to develop a conversation on the hows and possibilities we may write imagining how we'll build the world next to AI. I found this post tremendously valuable.
Thank you - I too would like more people to visualize what kind of reality they actually want to be in - I believe that would go a long way in this situation where we have discontent but at the same time infinite possibilities for change.
Thank you. I have a different way of talking about this, but I think pointing at the same thing. It seems to me that science can only tell us, what it knows... it can't tell us, that something does NOT exist. For example, it can't say, that stars have no consciousness. It can only say, we have not yet discovered the consciousness of stars. Yet when science pretends that the only things it knows, are the only things that CAN be known, I think of that as "scientism" -- a religious faith in science. I think we are saying similar things, and I like the distinctions you are offering between science and philosophy.
I understand what you're saying and I agree. Although I think you don't need to go as far as scientism (which is a sort of radical branch of physicalism) to criticize the monopoly physicalism has established – and it's consequences. In other words the distinction is that scientism says "only the observable can be known and this is physicalism" whereas physicalism says "so far we know only the observable and we won't consider anything else until ..."
Jàchym, I have no answers, but definitely more questions. Diving into more awareness of Physicalism has been very enriching to me. I would love to develop a conversation on the hows and possibilities we may write imagining how we'll build the world next to AI. I found this post tremendously valuable.
Thank you - I too would like more people to visualize what kind of reality they actually want to be in - I believe that would go a long way in this situation where we have discontent but at the same time infinite possibilities for change.
Thank you. I have a different way of talking about this, but I think pointing at the same thing. It seems to me that science can only tell us, what it knows... it can't tell us, that something does NOT exist. For example, it can't say, that stars have no consciousness. It can only say, we have not yet discovered the consciousness of stars. Yet when science pretends that the only things it knows, are the only things that CAN be known, I think of that as "scientism" -- a religious faith in science. I think we are saying similar things, and I like the distinctions you are offering between science and philosophy.
I understand what you're saying and I agree. Although I think you don't need to go as far as scientism (which is a sort of radical branch of physicalism) to criticize the monopoly physicalism has established – and it's consequences. In other words the distinction is that scientism says "only the observable can be known and this is physicalism" whereas physicalism says "so far we know only the observable and we won't consider anything else until ..."