= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on What I've learned from Less Wrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (232)
I disagree. I think most of what has historically been considered "philosophy" has been solved at this point, it just doesn't seem that way because once we understand a philosophical problem well enough to solve it, it doesn't seem like a philosophical problem anymore. Usually it turns into a scientific problem, or an easy question of inference from scientific knowledge, thus losing its aura of respectable mysteriousness.
The difference between our beliefs is that I see philosophy as a superset of science. Just because "what is human value?" starts mapping to science doesn't mean it stops being philosophy.
I wasn't referring to historical philosophy. I was referring to the specific hard problems I listed, namely "what is human value?" which even though it decomposes to being a problem of science, still has much more of the philosophy problem nature than the science problem nature.
Anyways this is a disagreement about the meaning of words only.
Whether you call a problem like "what is human value?" a science problem or a philosophy problem, it is still an important unsolved problem that via concerted effort we have a very real chance at solving.