Postmodern ideas...

crimsonjackal8 said:I’m not sure how much noise this made, but it feels to me like scientific positivism just took a massive hit. A recent paper was published in a major scientific journal that was essentially the work of a computer. We're talking about a machine posing the question and carrying out the entire "investigation" from start to finish.
So, where does that leave us? If I bring up Heidegger—who famously argued that "science does not think, science calculates"—you’ll probably just roll your eyes at me. But if a computer is doing the thinking, what's the move then? Is it actually philosophizing?

Don't panic, though. This isn't nearly as dramatic as it sounds. It wasn't a robot that actually wrote the paper; rather, scientists published research detailing how a robot can be utilized as a tool for investigation.
That robot is still a human creation. It's almost certainly packed with a massive knowledge base—think of it as a sophisticated expert system combined with flexible reasoning capabilities (the kind of stuff being heavily researched right now). In a specific micro-domain, a machine like that works beautifully. However, there remains an unbridgeable gap between the machine and the scientist—much like the gap between Deep Blue and a mediocre chess player like myself. Computers simply don't understand the implications of what they are doing.

Some food for thought... Why shouldn't automation contribute to science? In certain fields—like chess today, or perhaps experimental genetics tomorrow, as mentioned in the article—couldn't machines actually draw better conclusions than humans? And why would this even be a blow to positivist philosophy? Wouldn't it actually support it?

mistyfox812 said:I honestly don't think it's fair to blame Plato for the Platonists, Karl Marx for the Marxists, or Martin Heidegger for his followers—nor should we hold leading postmodernists responsible for some random ramblings. I say this quite broadly, though, as I haven't actually read much of those Frenchmen's work myself.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Tufir II said:Look, there’s nothing to be scared of. This isn't even remotely dramatic. And no, a robot didn't just write this paper out of nowhere—scientists actually published research on how robots can be used for actual research purposes.
That robot is a human creation, plain and simple. It’s definitely packed with some massive knowledge base acting as an expert system and a flexible reasoning framework (stuff they're working super hard on right now). And sure, a robot like that works great within its own little bubble. But there's still this massive, unbridgeable gap between the machine and the scientist—just like the huge gap between Deep Blue and a terrible chess player like me. Computers just don't *get* what they're doing.

Food for thought... Why shouldn't automation help advance science? In certain fields (like chess today, or maybe experimental genetics tomorrow, like that thing mentioned in the article), why couldn't they pull better conclusions than humans? And why would that even be a blow to positivist philosophy? If anything, wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

I can't find the exact link online, but back when that debate I linked was happening, M. Radman wrote about it in The Washington Post too. We're talking about the kind of work serious scientists have spent their entire lives training for. This stuff can be published as a formal research paper—basically, it's standard scientific labor, which is exactly what this robot can handle now.
I already mentioned in the thread that I think this news is actually awesome, so I'm really not sweating it. But Radman's take was pretty interesting (quoting from memory here): "I hope robots don't actually replace scientists, though I'm not quite sure why I'm hoping that."
But I brought it up in terms of Martin Heidegger: science doesn't "think," science "calculates." Even if that sounds like an exaggeration, a huge chunk of what scientists do boils down to that. It's calculation, not deep thought.
Science usually only does any real thinking when it hits a crisis, and even then, it's just the tiny handful of people at the top of the pyramid.
To wrap this one up: it feels to me like ignoring science through a philosophical lens in this era of tech is basically just burying your head in the sand. But honestly, that kind of blind optimism—thinking science will just fix everything—is just shallow positivism. Treating philosophy like it's just a handmaid to science (our current dominant worldview) is no different than treating it like a handmaid to theology back in the Middle Ages.

Tufir II said:Alright, I'll give it a shot. I'm gonna try to summarize your first post—basically just how I see your whole argument going—and then I'll hit back point by point. I know Kosmarac hates that, but honestly? It's just how my brain works. I can't really do it any other way. 🙄

Science just won't work without some kind of teleological worldview. It's basically a necessity.
Breaking down that whole teleological assumption. Just... tearing it all apart.
Attempt number three. Time to take the reins.
Everything's just... floating. No foundation, no core values, nothing to actually hold onto. It’s like there's zero stability left.
The West is going down the drain. Seriously.
The postmodernist take on this.

I honestly don't get why people think science *has* to assume the world has some grand purpose, or—even more specifically—that a Creator designed everything. Like, really? To make science work, all you actually need to assume is that there’s some kind of external consciousness out there. Sure, you can't prove it, but hey, a little healthy pragmatism goes a long way, right? It works as a starting point. You just have to assume the universe isn't total chaos—meaning laws exist—and that our brains are actually capable of figuring those laws out. Look, I know those are shaky assumptions, but my whole point is this: whether the world has a "purpose" or a Creator behind it doesn't change the math. Science doesn't need either to function.
I mean, most of this hits the mark. But honestly? Losing sight of a "purpose" isn't the same thing as falling into total chaos. Just because there isn't some massive, cosmic Goal or grand Meaning out there in Space doesn't mean the universe itself just turned into a giant mess. The laws of nature don't care what you believe in—they work the exact same way for a Christian as they do for an atheist. So, why wouldn't we both try to figure them out?
Trying to take control of things? Honestly, that's not even some modern trend. It’s just how we’re wired. It’s human nature, plain and simple. The only real question is what kind of tools we actually have to work with.
I gotta disagree here. If we’re looking at this strictly from a logic standpoint, Ivan Karamazov is totally right when he says, "If God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted." But honestly? That doesn't mean he's actually correct in practice. Think about it—so many core values are recognized as "good" across pretty much every society out there. It's like, sure, we have those destructive impulses, but that sense of doing what's right is just baked into human nature too. You don't necessarily need to believe a Creator made us just to justify being decent people to one another.
Everyone’s always yapping about how the West is totally collapsing, but honestly? I’m just not seeing it. Like, yeah, sure, there are plenty of things trying to tear everything down, but I still feel like there’s this "healthy core" holding it all together, no matter what happens.
How does being all grumpy and critical actually solve anything? Like, seriously, what's the end goal there? Wouldn't it be way better to just... try doing something instead? I totally get what was being said about how pessimistic Western thinkers can be in that essay over at The Washington Post (that's my third link, by the way).

That’s basically it. But man, my brain is totally fried... I can't even remember the main points anymore. 😠 Maybe some other time...

Look, I’m not saying it’s a requirement. I’m just saying that’s how history actually played out. If you dig into the early scientists, you see this huge pattern—their belief that the universe actually has some kind of order was basically tied to the idea of an intelligent Creator. And it wasn't just the old school guys, either; this mindset carried all the way into the 1900s. Even Albert Einstein, when he was fighting against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics because he couldn't stand the idea of pure randomness, famously argued that "God does not play dice." He basically viewed his whole scientific drive as a quest to figure out exactly how God built the world and whether He could have done it any other way.
But man, those ideas about an intelligent Creator leave us stuck with this weird sense of "natural laws," right? But where do they even come from? Like, are these laws just how our brains process the world, or are they actual rules the universe follows? And why does everything seem to run so smoothly instead of just being total chaos? It’s wild because we don't really have "natural moral laws." In that area, we're all about freedom, whereas when it comes to physics, everything feels totally forced. Honestly, I think that truce we struck between science and religion was actually a huge mistake for our era. We basically carved the world up: we handed over the soul, meaning, and goodness to God, while leaving the physical stuff to these rigid, unyielding natural laws. Since God lost his grip on the material side of things, people started assuming He didn't exist at all. And once you go down that road, suddenly there’s no goodness, no purpose, no beauty... none of it. Everything just gets dismissed as some priest's scam. And that's exactly how we end up sliding straight into nihilism.
Look, I’m not saying science can’t function without purpose. It’s just that, at its core, it feels fundamentally broken without it. Human consciousness is intentional—it’s always aiming for something.
And yeah, obviously I believe we have some level of control over the wheel, which is fine—I mean, who else would we hand it to? But if we toss out the whole idea of having a goal, then it doesn't really matter where we steer that thing. Or if we even get to hold the wheel at all. To me, you just can't get anywhere without that Platonic drive toward the Good.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think postmodernism has any real answers here. But I also don't buy this "everything's actually fine, philosophers are just making things complicated" approach. That path leads straight to hell.
I wanted to reply to you point-by-point, but honestly, I feel like your breakdown misses the heart of what I was trying to say. So, just a brain dump instead—I can't really untangle these thoughts because they're all so messy and connected.

Tufir II said:But look, there’s just this massive, unbridgeable gap between him and actual scientists—kind of like the gap between Deep Blue and a trash chess player like me. Computers don't actually get what they're doing...

And how the hell do you know that?

mistyfox812 said:But honestly, acting like science is some magic wand that fixes everything is just shallow, head-in-the-sand positivism. Treating philosophy like it’s just some handmaiden to science—which is basically the dominant worldview right now—is no different than treating it like a servant to theology back in the Middle Ages.

It all just boils down to how someone defines "knowledge" in the first place. If you ask me, science is really just applying one specific philosophical methodology on the hunt for the truth...

Heidegger’s prophetic take on technology feels more like a reaction to disappointment, much like Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity. It’s an ambivalent stance toward the dominant forces of our age. If we want to find the true culprits, however, we should look toward Descartes and Leibniz. We need to look at those philosophers who were also mathematicians—and truly monumental ones at that. They pioneered the idolatry of the number, specifically through calculus. They essentially forced philosophy to leap into mathematics. They were the modern Pythagoreans. Even Pythagoras’s music of the spheres could be reduced to math; you can numerically order the strings that produce specific tones. That is how this obsession with numbers was born. But just because we can calculate it, does that mean we can define music by measurement alone?😕

Heidegger offers another thought: "Poets create what remains."🙂

Bradley Fisher20 said:How can you be so sure?

There are several layers to this. I’m not necessarily saying future machines won't get it, but the ones we have today? They just don't.

The first reason is unprovable, really—it's more of an intuitive hunch—but it feels right. It’s hard to wrap my head around the idea that today's hardware is actually conscious of anything at all.

Then there’s the philosophical side of things. To put it bluntly, current machines fall straight into the trap of the Searlean Chinese room argument, or if you prefer the Harnadian take, the symbol grounding problem. Basically, you can't build true semantics within purely formal systems that lack any connection to perception or physical movement. It's a similar line of reasoning used by Dreyfus—that well-known Heideggerian 🙂 in his famous book, "What computers can't do?".

Finally, there's a third reason—which ties back to the others, and maybe even the first one—that true "understanders" have the ability to step outside a fixed set of rules (like the rules for playing chess, for instance) and actually reflect on those rules, and then reflect on that reflection, and so on. Why that works that way is a tough nut to crack...

Anyway, let's try to stick to the topic here 😉

Amanda Fowler2 said:Heidegger’s prophetic view of technology feels more like a reaction to disappointment—kind of like how Nietzsche critiqued Christianity. It’s this ambivalent relationship with whatever happens to be dominant at the time. If you want to find the real culprits, though, you have to look toward Descartes and Leibniz. I mean, look at those philosophers who were also mathematicians; they were truly epochal. Their whole thing was this idolatry of the number—specifically, differential calculus. They basically birthed the shift from pure philosophy into mathematics. They were the modern Pythagoreans. Sure, you can subject Pythagoras's lyre music to calculation—you can numerically rank the strings that produce specific tones—but does that mean we should declare music to be nothing more than a measurement?😕

Heidegger adds another layer to this: "What remains is created by poets."🙂

But honestly, what choice do we have? Sound waves are physical phenomena, so describing them mathematically is just part of the territory. 😉 On top of that, there are plenty of other scientific ways to approach music—take, for instance, the theories on musical grammar proposed by Lerdahl and Jackendoff (one presentation, a brief overview).

That said, why should a scientific description or an explanation of certain musical elements dictate how we actually choose to listen? 😕

And why blame Descartes and Leibniz for all this? Is it because of the massive leaps in mathematics or their immense contributions to philosophy? Why assume science and art are inherently at odds? And really, besides the ultra-wealthy, who else is actually prone to this "idolatry of the number"?

I find Ausvic more symptomatic when viewed strictly as a number, though you certainly can't overlook the profit margins. That’s the crux of the matter: once we start focusing solely on the data, ethics simply vanish.😢

So if we’re all agreeing that life is just about "girls and cars," how am I supposed to talk some guy out of clear-cutting the entire Amazon rainforest? Sure, he makes a killing doing it, and hey, that profit buys him the "girls and cars" lifestyle, right? You try telling him it’s a threat to human survival, but he’ll just look at you and ask, "When, though?" You say, "In maybe twenty years." And he’s just like, "Whatever, honestly, by then I won't even be able to get it up anyway." Look, there have always been people who couldn't care less about the greater good, but the real nightmare now is that nobody can even see what the "greater good" is anymore—not even to agree that it exists. People act like the common good is some total scam, like there's nothing in this world besides "girls and cars." Even the philosophers are basically saying it's nothing but "girls and cars."
So yeah, go ahead, chop down every single tree and go grab yourself a supermodel and a Mercedes. Since that's supposedly the ultimate goal, it's clearly the best move you can make.

Look, this whole cars&girls thing is a joke—you really have to read those lyrics with a healthy dose of irony 😁

I think the real issue stems from expecting people to act out of pure, unadulterated altruism. In any group of true altruists, it only takes one selfish jerk to wreck the whole thing—which is exactly why pure altruism never actually evolved. What *did* evolve, though, was reciprocal altruism—basically the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" approach. We need to stop nursing the illusion that we can just wake everyone up and turn them into saints; instead, we should figure out how to manage things through a system of restrictions, sanctions, incentives, and persuasion.

Take a country like Brazil, for example. It’s a developing nation with precious natural resources, specifically its massive forests. Why would they bother saving the planet by preserving their timber when wealthier nations are constantly stepping on them? The answer isn't trying to force Brazil to become some purely selfless state—which, let's be honest, would just make them a laughingstock—but rather figuring out what actual BENEFITS they get for slowing down deforestation. You have to find a way to implement those measures without putting them in the red.

I know that sounds cold, but that's just human nature. Unfortunately. That’s why I think all those anarchist, far-left fantasies are doomed to fail, no matter how tempting they might sound.

I'm totally with you on this. There's honestly zero reason why Brazil shouldn't just clear out all those forests. That's exactly where the issue lies.

And yeah, the whole "girls & cars" thing is a total joke, but if you try to dig deeper, you'll find absolutely nothing substantial behind it. I’m serious—there is NOTHING there. It's pure nihilism. Like, forget the Amazon rainforest; we might as well just say it's all being replaced by genetically modified kids shaped like Barbie.

crimsonjackal8 said:Look at it from Brazil's perspective. It’s a developing nation with limited resources beyond its massive natural wealth, especially those forests. Why would they be expected to safeguard the entire planet's future by preserving their land when wealthier nations just push them around? The answer isn't to demand that Brazil act out of pure altruism—which, let's face it, would just make them a laughingstock. Instead, we have to figure out what actual incentives they can get for slowing down deforestation, ensuring they aren't being forced to take a loss.

Oh, please! Spare me the "anarcho-leftist delusions"! 😁

Do you honestly believe the vast majority of Brazilians gain anything from destroying the Amazon? 😕
Or that their quality of life would actually improve if they stopped? 😕

And how does one even "put themselves in Brazil's position"? Is the country some kind of single, unified entity? 😕

We could try roleplaying as the general population—who have zero say in the matter—or as the ruling elite who destroy the Amazon for their own short-term profit at everyone else's expense.

But I don't see any overlap between those two groups, making it impossible to simultaneously inhabit both the roles of the exploited and the exploiters.

My takeaway is that for Brazilians, protecting the Amazon makes sense for their own sake, rather than for some abstract, "altruistic" cause.

adriatic said:Fine, let me play the role of the "anarcho-leftist dreamer" here! 😁

Do you honestly believe that Brazilians (the vast majority of them) actually gain anything from destroying the Amazon? 😕
Or that their lives would somehow get worse if they just stopped tearing it apart? 😕

How can anyone even try to "speak for Brazil"? It’s not some singular, sentient entity. 😕

We could try pretending to be the common people (the Brazilian masses) who have zero say in the matter, or we could pretend to be the ruling elite who—for their own short-term gain at the expense of everyone else—is gutting the Amazon.

But I don't see any overlap between those two groups, so trying to occupy both positions—the exploited and the exploiter—at once is just impossible.

My take? It’s in the best interest of Brazilians to preserve the Amazon for their own sake, not out of some vague, abstract sense of "altruism."

Well, theoretically speaking, I’m with you. (And for the record, even though I know it’s mostly wishful thinking, I’ve always had a soft spot for anarchism and leftist ideals 😁 )

The reality is that the Brazilian government relies on logging to pad its thin budget—though, absurdly enough, the real winners are the Brazilian billionaires and the global corporate giants. And likely, plenty of impoverished Brazilians get a tiny slice of the pie too—if the budget shrinks further, it’s the poorest who will feel the hit first.

The point is, if there's nothing standing in their way, people will very often default to selfishness and chase quick, short-term wins.

And I actually agree with your final point. Like some Buddhist once said—altruism is really just the only form of true egoism left. Especially when you look at things through a long-term, global lens.

Here’s another example of what I see as nihilism absolutely wrecking the West. If the ultimate "good life" is just driving a Mercedes and chasing models, why even bother having kids? It honestly feels like it just lowers my chances of hitting that peak lifestyle. I want to go out and have some fun, not get stuck being responsible for little humans who end up draining me—not just in my twenties, but through my thirties, forties, fifties, sixties... it doesn't matter. The definition of "making it" stays the same: luxury cars and hot women. And now look at the West—birth rates are tanking, which is going to lead to massive pension fund collapses, political chaos, you name it.
What I'm trying to say is that humans are fundamentally driven by purpose. Any kind of purpose. If we don't find something meaningful to reflect on, we’ll just settle for something shallow and mindless. Like the whole Mercedes and models thing. You don't even have to realize that a lack of real meaning is what's actually shaping your entire existence, but it's happening anyway.

Well, go ahead and keep crafting your little postmodernist essays.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Kosmarac said:Fine, go ahead and churn out your own little postmodernist manifestos then.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

That was actually the very first link I even posted 🙂

Come on, Košmarč, stay with me here.🙄

My apologies. I was going through a bit of a postmodernist phase back then, so I wasn't paying much attention. Someone in your field actually gave me a serious reality check in the meantime. Sure, you’ve had your moments too, but we both know how it goes—no one can argue with a woman's intuition.

Actually, I might start writing pieces like this for the New York Times. How could they possibly know better? Who knows, maybe I'll even snag an award for it.😁