Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Anyway, goodnight all. My wife wants to use the computer. This is a fun debate - I haven't had to stick up for us in a while.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

most of them are like Frogger, quite happy to potter along conducting experiments

If you call me an experimentalist again, then I'm going to stop fooling around and start arguing for real.

Oh sorry, I remember that you said you were a physicist - you must be a theoretical physicist? Actually, arguing for real would be better.

[KrazyHorse]

A young physicist, upon learning that he was denied tenure after six productive years at a University in San Francisco, requested a meeting with the Provost for an explanation, and a possible appeal. At the meeting, the Provost told the young physicist, "I'm sorry to tell you that the needs of the University have shifted somewhat, during the past six-years leading up to your tenure decision. In point of fact, what we now require is a female, condensed-matter experimentalist. Unfortunately, you are a male, high-energy theorist!"

Dejected but not defeated, the young physicist thought for a moment about the implications of the Provost's words. "Sir," he said, "I would be willing to convert in two of the three categories you mention, but ... I'll never agree to become an experimentalist!"

[KrazyHorse]

Hah. Found in searching for the previous joke:

"A priest, a drunkard and a physicist were condemned to die by the guillotine. The priest is led up to the guillotine and is asked if he prefers to be facing up or down. He replies "I would like my last earthly sight to be of heaven". The executioner than fastens him in face up and releases the guillotine blade. It falls, but stops just within an inch of his throat. "A miracle!" the crowd of spectators shout in unison, and the priest is released unharmed.

Next, the drunkard is led up the steps and he is asked if he prefers to face up or down. "Upward", he replied, "so that I can drink, one last time, some good wine you pour down my throat!" After the drunkard is given a drink, the huge blade is released and plummets downward, but stops within an inch of his throat. "Mon Dieu! A second miracle!" the crowd cheers, and he is released unharmed.

Finally, the physicist is led up to be executed. He also chooses to be shackled to the guillotine face up. The crowd is placing bets left and right about whether a third miracle will take place. As he lies face up, he ponders the death apparatus above him. Raising his hand, moments before the executioner releases the blade, the physicist declares, "Wait, wait! ... I see what your problem is!"

[GePap]

Philosophers deal with what makes us trully human, our sentience, this ability we seem to have to think in the abstract, and all it implies. If philosophers are still arguing the same points as they were three thousand years ago, it is because man has not changed significantly in those thousands of years, which is why art of that time still resonates with us.

The best way I could think to pose the difference between the Ashers' Froggers, and Cybergnu's on one side, and Agathon and his suporter on the other is this:

Scientist of the current mode expand the realm of what is possible for man to do, by exploring the workings of the world we live in and its applications. Yet making something possibe is not the same as making it real: scientist made the Nuclear bomb possible, but it was only when other decided it should be built that it was made real. Those other's are not scientist, but people trained in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and all of them making their decisions based on sets of assumptions, codes, and so on formed by philosophers accross the ages.

Even our level of technology makes many, many different worlds possible, but again, while possibilities are vital, what really impacts the lives of the billions of humans living today is which, and how, these possibilities become realities. Theoretical physicists in a lab are not the ones to make those choices, not the ones who make those decisions, becuase in the end, they are not trained to do it.

As for why philosophy must continue? Becuase one day you "possibilities boys" will come up with something trully new, something that will make the codes and ethics we use to make the decisions outdated: and who then will create the new codes needed? The scientists? Hardly.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
Hah. Found in searching for the previous joke:

"A priest, a drunkard and a physicist....

I've heard it before. New Zealanders often tell this joke against themselves (you'd understand if you'd lived there).

I have a question, has anybody here been reading the Sokal/Bricmont book on abuses of scientific concepts by French philosophers? If you have, please don't tar us english speaking analytic philosophers with the same brush as those clowns.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

As for why philosophy must continue? Becuase one day you "possibilities boys" will come up with something trully new, something that will make the codes and ethics we use to make the decisions outdated: and who then will create the new codes needed? The scientists? Hardly.

It's happening now in medical ethics with some reproductive technologies (that's one reason why philosophers are making so much money lecturing about these things). One problem in IVF is who exercises parental rights - the birth mother or the biological mother?

[The Vagabond]

Asher, here is an example of a philosophical treatise on mind and AI:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0195106466/reviews/102-8228652-9366556#01951064665121

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
by Roger Penrose

While the guy is from a math department, his work clearly belongs to the realm of philosophy.

A leading critic of artificial intelligence research returns to the attack, attempting to lay the groundwork for an analysis of the true nature of intelligence. Building on his arguments in The Emperor's New Mind (not reviewed), Penrose (Mathematics/Oxford) begins by refuting the assertion that true intelligence can be attained--or even adequately simulated--by the strictly computational means to which current computers are ultimately limited. Much of his argument depends closely on the application of G”del's Undecidability Theorem to Turing machines--deep waters for laypeople, although the fundamentals of his argument are accessible to readers without sophisticated mathematical training. Having disposed of the central tenets of current AI research, Penrose then turns to an even more fundamental question: the actual foundations in modern physics (i.e., relativity and quantum theory) of the phenomenon of consciousness. Here much of his summary depends on fairly complex mathematical reasoning, although the key points are summarized for the general reader who has been willing to follow him so far. Penrose feels that a new physical synthesis, reconciling the paradoxes of quantum theory and bringing them into harmony with Einstein's gravitational theories, is ultimately necessary to explain the noncomputational elements of consciousness and intelligence. He speculates on the possible role of cellular structures called microtubules in creating a quantum phenomenon on a macroscopic scale within the brain, but grants that more research is needed to establish any connection between physical and mental phenomena. His conclusion steps back to a philosophical overview of the subject, paying homage to Plato, among others. A challenging examination of a central problem of modern philosophy, with no final answers but plenty of food for thought.

[Ramo]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell this debate is about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Asher, here is an example of a philosophical treatise on mind and AI:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0195106466/reviews/102-8228652-9366556#01951064665121

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
by Roger Penrose

While the guy is from a math department, his work clearly belongs to the realm of philosophy.

At least one of the people on this thread has a really negative opinion of Penrose, although one needn't agree with him for your point to be sound.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know much about Penrose, but I've heard negative things about him from other physics people.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's happening now in medical ethics with some reproductive technologies (that's one reason why philosophers are making so much money lecturing about these things). One problem in IVF is who exercises parental rights - the birth mother or the biological mother?

Good point Agathon.

Just one problem among many within Biomedical Ethics.

All those who believe philosophy has no contribution to make to the real world needs to look here for a rebuttal.

We rely on the philosophers to sort some of these thorny problems arising as technology interacts with society.

Frogger: Why don't you read the founder of scientific method, Descartes? His discourse on the method of philosophical and scientific inquiry examines some of your 'realism/anti-realism' questions.

[Jon Miller]

I don't know asingle person who waits to hear what the philophers say about medical ethicists (at least not those at universities)

most listen to their pastor, or herb supplier, or union organizer or scientist

as far as I can tell, the place for philosophers is to talk to eachother while the rst of the world reaches understandings about life

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't know asingle person who waits to hear what the philophers say about medical ethicists (at least not those at universities)

most listen to their pastor, or herb supplier, or union organizer or scientist

Jon Miller

No wonder the world is in such a state. I suggest you attend a course on medical ethics, which is mandatory in many health care systems these days. Or learn about how a hospital ethics committee works.

We are talking about applied ethics here; not navel gazing. It's a lucrative business these days.

No scientist qua scientist can tell us the least thing about ethics.

[Jon Miller]

why should I listen to people who tell me how to beleive?

I will listen to those who think similiarly to I, or those I trust, ect

some random philopher doesn't mean anything to me ethics wise (a random catholic preist would mean more
, and I am not catholic)

Jon Miller