This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Hmm.. It seems that my wording was imprecise. Reflecting on it, I guess the best explanation is that I think that frameworks, specifically in moral philosophy are unfalsifiable. There is nothing intrinsically superior about being Kantian or Utilitarian, to entities that aren't swayed by practical considerations.
In other cases, I think it is eminently possible to say that certain "philosophical" claims are, in fact false, because they don't hold up in the face of empirical scrutiny or are based off faulty premises.
In those scenarios: I've made factual claims about these topics. I believe Searle is wrong about the Chinese Room, that illusionists are wrong about consciousness, and that moral realists are wrong about the nature of morality. I believe they are wrong not because they have a different "perspective," but because their models of reality are, in my estimation, incorrect. They make claims that are either inconsistent with a physicalist worldview or are simply less parsimonious than the alternative.
Let's take the Chinese Room. My claim that the system as a whole understands Chinese is a functionalist hypothesis. It is a claim about what "understanding" is at a physical level. I posit that understanding is not a magical, indivisible essence, but a complex process of information manipulation.
Searle's argument is pure sleight-of-hand that works by focusing our attention on a single component: the man who cannot understand Chinese, while glossing over the fact that the man is merely the CPU. The system's "understanding" resides in the total architecture. To say the system doesn't understand because the man doesn't is like saying a computer can't calculate a sum because a single transistor has no concept of arithmetic (or my usual go-to, that no individual neuron in a human brain speaks English). Searle's argument only works if you presuppose that understanding must be a property of a single, irreducible component, which is precisely the non-physicalist assumption I reject. My position is a testable model of cognition, his relies on an appeal to "intrinsic intentionality," a property he never defines in a falsifiable way.
The same logic applies to my rejection of p-zombies. The concept of a philosophical zombie is, in my view, physically incoherent. It presumes that consciousness (or "qualia") is an optional extra, a layer of paint that can be applied or withheld from a physically identical object. This is closet dualism. At least real dualists are honest about their kooky beliefs.
My hypothesis is that consciousness is (likely) what a certain kind of complex information processing feels like from the inside. It's an emergent property of the physical system, not a separate substance or field that interacts with it. You cannot have a physically identical replica of a conscious human, down to the last quantum state, that lacks consciousness, for the same reason you cannot have a physically identical replica of a fire that lacks heat. The heat is a macro-level property of the underlying molecular motion.
Likewise, consciousness is a macro-level property of the underlying neural computation. To claim otherwise is to make a claim that violates what we know about physical cause and effect. Again, this is not a "perspective"; it is a hypothesis about the identity of mind and specific physical processes.
Finally, coming to "objective" morality. My claim that it does not exist is an empirical one, based on the lack of evidence. It is a claim about the contents of the universe. If moral realism is true, then moral facts must exist somewhere. Are they physical laws? Are they non-physical entities that somehow interact with our brains? The burden of proof is on the realist to show me the data, to point to the objective moral truth in a way that is distinguishable from a deeply felt human preference. Absent that evidence, the most parsimonious explanation is that "morality" is a complex set of evolved behaviors, game-theoretic strategies, and cultural constructs. It is real in the same way that "money" or "governments" are real, as a shared social reality, but not in the way that "gravity" is real.
So yes, I engage in philosophy. But I do so with the conviction that these are not merely questions for eternal debate. They are unsolved scientific problems. (In some cases, they might not even be solvable, such as the issue of infinite regress)
My positions are hypotheses about the nature of reality, and I hold them because I believe they are the most physically plausible and parsimonious explanations available.
I believe that this position is tantamount to philosophical naturalism, but correct me if I'm wrong.
More options
Context Copy link