[Fis] New Perspectives. Reply to Stan
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Thu Jun 13 15:10:02 CEST 2019
Joseph,
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 16:40, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> Thank you for your question. I reply with a modified excerpt from an article in Philosophies. The full article is Open Access. I am indebted to Rafael Capurro for part of this formulation. Comments welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> Natural Philosophy: Excerpt from Brenner, J. 2018. The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy. Philosophies 2018 3, 41.
> Natural Philosophy deals with the question of nature as a whole stated by beings (ourselves) that find themselves in nature without having the possibility of a holistic view, being ourselves in nature and not beyond it. The fact that we are able to ask this question means that we have some kind of pre-knowledge about nature as a whole while at the same time this pre-knowledge is problematic, otherwise we would not ask the question and would not be able to become natural philosophers.
> The question then changes to the difference between nature and reality as a whole, including fictions, non-verifiable beliefs and intangible objects of thought. Since the idea that classical Natural Philosophy evolved into science seems correct, we are left, for the domain of Natural Philosophy, with only a speculative interpretation of nature viewed in its entirety. This interpretation is, ipso facto, at a lower ontological level than the science which has largely replaced it. Much of the 20th Century linguistic turn, expressed in both analytical and phenomenological and residual transcendental traditions, is well visible in contemporary philosophy.
> The reaction to this unsatisfactory state of affairs has been the reinstatement of realisms and materialisms of various kinds, associated today with the names of Derrida, Badiou, Zizek, and others. The ‘ontological turn’ in philosophy is a term of art that designates dissatisfaction with descriptions of reality based on analytical, semantic criteria of truth. Starting with Heidegger’s critique of hermeneutics and the basing of philosophy on human life, the ontological turn is a challenge to neo-Kantian epistemologies, and looks to what the structure of the world might be like to enable scientific, that is, non-absolute knowledge. Unfortunately, ontological theories have been hobbled by the retention of static terms whose characteristics are determined by bivalent logic. In 2002, Priest suggested that such an ontological turn in philosophy was taking place, away from language in the direction of an contradictorial view of reality. Priest proposed paraconsistent logic as appropriate to this turn, but his system suffers from the epistemological limitations of paraconsistency. Lupasco, on the other hand, anticipated the ontological turn by some 60 years. (In the complete article, I show that his logical system can be used to differentiate between Natural Philosophy and Philosophy tout court.)
> The most important point for me is that Natural Philosophy tells us something real about the world that is consistent with our best science, physical, biological and cognitive. Speculative philosophy can always re-illuminate ‘eternal’ questions such as what it means to be a thinking being in a non-thinking environment. This non-Natural Philosophy, to repeat, exists for ‘natural’ reasons: it is a natural necessity for human beings to create it, by a natural process, but it is not part of nature qua content.
This seems to assume some primary natural reality, isn’t it?
As I have shown, this requires a non computationalist theory of mind, which seems to me to be highly speculative.
I am not sure we can avoid the mind-body problem in a philosophy of information context.
There are no evidences for physicalism or for a physical primary reality, nor are there evidences for a non computationalist theory of mind. Of course some people confuse the evidences for physical laws with evidences that such laws are primary, but that is just because they “believes” in some natural world to begin with. I think it is better to be agnostic and see where the facts (experimental) and working theories lead us.
We can’t have both Mechanism in cognitive science, and materialism, or just physicalism, in the “natural science”. That has been shown logically inconsistent (ask for reference if interested).
Bruno
>
>
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
> Sent: mardi, 11 juin 2019 21:09
> To: fis
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Perspectives
>
> Joseph -- Would you like to write how you define Natural Philosophy?
>
> STAN
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:03 PM Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear Pedro and All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks are due to you, Pedro, for this new and valuable formulation of the – daunting - task at hand. The task is logical and philosophical, as well as scientific. Philosophy here, exemplified by the Philosophy of Information, does not mean standard discussions of ‘where did we come from’ and ‘does a transcendent deity exist’, which are as sterile in their way as the excesses of the IT and AI ideologists. Natural Philosophy can be a ‘vehicle’ for interaction between people of good will, the collaboration that you point to that may help to advance IS4SI. Some of you who may not have been at the Conference in San Francisco (Berkeley) may wish to look at abstracts of papers from the Philosophy of Information sub-conferences at the 2015, 2017 and 2019 Summit conferences on Information.
>>
>>
>>
>> To revitalize the list is indeed a key first step. But it starts, in my opinion, with some self-examination, examination of whether one’s own theories are just ‘pet’ theories. Applying this criterion to my own Logic in Reality, about which I have written on several occasions, I claim that it is not just a pet theory. It is a new perspective on how information, logic and thought operate as real processes, following laws within the laws of physics, without loss of a human, ethical dimension. However, LIR makes many demands on one. It requires an understanding and acceptance of what is /not/ Natural Philosophy, which may include some of the ideas that have appeared in this list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, accepting my own criterion of interactive non-separability, I do not call for any exclusions or limitations on the list. I only wish that everyone makes the necessary effort to position his or her own views in relation to the overriding need for furthering the Common Good. The sum of all such honest self-referential (or second-order recursive) opinions of people about their own work would itself be a useful creative effort, I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>
>>
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
>> Sent: mardi, 11 juin 2019 13:05
>> To: 'fis'
>> Subject: [Fis] New Perspectives
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> A few days ago took place the IS4SI Meeting, in SFco, with one of the
>>
>> parallel sessions devoted to FIS and other sessions also with presence
>>
>> of veteran parties of this list. Relevant speakers in the plenary
>>
>> sessions covered the main topic of the conference, expressed as: Where
>>
>> is the I in Artificial Intelligence and the Meaning in Information? From
>>
>> Tristan Harris to Melanie Mitchell, to Paul Verschure, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view the perspectives in these IT fields are changing
>>
>> significantly. The tremendous hype in AI, Deep Learning, IOT, etc. keeps
>>
>> unabated, but critical voices are being heard, not just from a few
>>
>> Academia corners as usual, but now by leading technologists and
>>
>> researchers of big companies in these very fields. "Dissent" on the
>>
>> contents, methodologies, and consequences of social applications is growing.
>>
>>
>>
>> The industrial development of this IT sector --notwithstanding the
>>
>> inflated proclamations and all the hype of the gurus-- does not mean the
>>
>> arrival of some great singularity, or the symbiosis with machines, or
>>
>> widespread menace of robots & cyborgs... these are slogans coming from
>>
>> the industrialists to maintain social/ideological preeminence for their
>>
>> whole sector. Rather I think they are starting to feel the consequences
>>
>> of their social overstretching in different ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fundamental point, in my opinion, is that our solitary, isolated
>>
>> efforts from a few Academia places (Sciences & Humanities) in the quest
>>
>> for new perspectives in Information Science, and not just AI
>>
>> development, should not isolated any more. We can now establish an
>>
>> interesting dialog and partnership with those new "dissenters" of the
>>
>> technology in its concepts, methods, and social applications. It is upon
>>
>> us to improve the discussion procedures, the collaborations, the
>>
>> organization, etc. so that this opportunity might materialize
>>
>> progressively. Do not ask me how... In any case I pointed out three
>>
>> future directions for IS4SI advancement: community building, attracting
>>
>> scientific/technological avantgarde, and organizational improvement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Revitalizing this discussion list--shouldn't it be one of the first steps?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best greetings to all,
>>
>>
>>
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>
>>
>>
>> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ <http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
>>
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Fis mailing list
>>
>> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> <x-msg://152/#m_8386423096837602299_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40B>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>_______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190613/43063f56/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list