PHILOSOPHY - Contemporary: Experimental Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Joshua Knobe (Yale University) describes a new philosophical tool called experimental philosophy. To explain the project, he introduces some new research from Felipe De Brigard, and he shows how it applies to a traditional problem in philosophy. He ends with a question for the viewers: does philosophy's new tool help us make progress on philosophical questions?
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Epa2/
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/smuhAjyRbw0/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](/img/n.gif)
This video suffers from an unnecessarily broad title. The title suggests we are going to learn the answer to the question, "what is experimental philosophy." Then, most of the video's content engages Dr. Brigard's 'experiment' (not a true experiment), which I think is an insufficient vignette for experimental philosophy. So, WHAT IS EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY?? Isn't it simply psychological research (i.e. cognitive science) which references philosophical issues? If this is the case, then could it also be the case that experimental philosophy is more of an interdisciplinary domain rather than a domain of philosophy?
That's correct. It also uses techniques from other fields like decision theory, deep learning, ethnography and corpus linguistics, to determine certain conclusions about philosophical problems. It's really just a return to natural philosophy of some kind I think.
You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
But then who is there to do the thinking?
This is the Matrix movie.
This tells us nothing about reality, only how people think about reality. It's Plato's Cave, Brain in a Vat, Descartes' Evil Demon, The Matrix, etc., etc., all over again. You're running on a threadmill going nowhere fast. These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along!
You must be a physicist, or a chemist.
Daniel Amos Friedrich how do you know your senses aren't deceiving you and how do you distinguish a valid perception from an invalid perception?
How does the "experiment" shed light on the problem?
Are there statistically significant results that were obtained from the questionnaires?
How is what he did different than reframing the problem, thinking about his own intuitions, then informally asking colleagues and undergraduate students what they thought about it?
I think if he had done that, he would have found the same result. I think that is also how philosophy is normally done.
What was gained by making it a formal "experiment"?
Absolutely agree. This was my first thought having watched the video.
Isn't great art always getting ahead of philosophy and technology? The Matrix poses a very similar dilema, only with a bigger complexity: the writers figured out that yes, there's more to life than just happiness, that's why the matrix didn't give people perfect lives, it simply gave them contexts that were not their real contexts. But even though people's lives were far from perfect (as is to most people in real life), they still mostly chose to stay in the matrix, because, as this experiment here showed, people do tend to stick with what they got, even when it ain't that great!
great video, made me actually think about each situation. Also brought here by Prof. Estrada =)
What if they put us into something like this so this is what we are "great awakening" up from?
I went into the machine only to find that I had left the reverse.
The Matrix plot lol
Same here prof. Daniel Estrada brought me here #NJIT
Chirag Rana Many thanks to Mr. Estrada!
Unfortunately, I can't erase the knowledge of all four choices. There is no guarantee of duration in each choice; all of them might end in death relatively soon and each have gradients of illusion within their architecture. So, I think flipping a four sided coin would be reasonable. I was brought here by Dr. Recommended for You.
One thing I can't stand is plagiarism. De Brigard isn't the originator of the Experience Machine, though he experimented with it. It was Nozick in "Anarchy, State and Utopia" (1974). The term "superduper" with referenced to the neuropsychologists is neither Knobe's or De Brigard's, but Nozick's. Give credit where credit is due, Knobe. Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Reverse Experience Machine experiment is a hack from the Matrix. If X-phi wants to be taken seriously it ought to consider originality in its experimentalism.
Only thing is, I WOULD go into the machine because I don't have much going for me in my like and I am not particularly happy. As for the converse experiment I would only leave the matrix if it was guaranteed that it would be better as in I would not have the same hang ups and insecurities as I do in the dream, because if that was the case there would be no point to leave the machine.
Philosophy isn't suppose to be how people ordinarily think, it suppose to be about figuring out which answers to this questions are actually the right once?
This sentence is confusing for me, because the example he gave is about how people think about the experience machine, isn't this contradiction or I missed something?
Also what does he refer to by the word (to this questions), does he refer to all philosophical questions or what?
Matrix.
the point of why reality is desired over pre-obtained happiness is because the unknown is capable of limitless happiness over a systematical opinion.
on the 'reverse experiment' it is the same but reverse as well; comfort is overwhelming in the machine compared to the risk of the unknown 'real' life being something better.
I would likely choose to keep life as I know it today, regardless of the truth.
But, I would have a strong desire to get out of the VAT if I was told that was the case (but I also wouldn't know who to trust in such a situation). I would feel divided on the choice to know the truth vs giving up on my family and connections in the virtual world.
I wouldn't, however, give up reality for virtual fantasy.
Awesome! I want so badly to mispronounce Prof. Knobe's name...(K'no-bee...). This is the synthesis of philosophy and psychology I've been looking for!
field philosophy more like it
Professor Estrada brought me here...represent!!!
blacksceptre Awesome!
I couldn't finish the video because of the way this guy says words.
This doesn't seem to account for one's evolution while being in the experience machine.
The thought experiment doesn't reveal an inconsistency. Audience response to the experience machine (EM) is that they believe there is more to life than experiencing happiness. In the reverse case (REM), they choose not to leave the machine. In REM audiences think they would not want to leave because they are reflecting on their current lives which consist of values independent of what EM provides. In both cases, their decision is directed by the same motivation. They are consistent.
Don't they do this in the 'news' section of Philosophy Now?
so basically, the status quo bias is the most common one guiding our decisions.
This reminds me of Truman's show, which reminded me of Plato's Cave. I don't think there is a contradiction, we don't want to enter the machine because we want an authentic life, and for us, an authentic life is the life we are used to living.
So you want to live in fantasyland?
Ye, a truly deep insight into our nature, people don't like change! :)
Total Recall was a movie about this same idea.
lol he used the word progress
Like psychology
interesting
I think De Brigard is wrong to conclude that people said they wanted to stay in the machine in the reversed version of the experience machine because they have the tendency to stick with the live they have. No, I think they wanted to stay in the machine because they know that is was themselves that made the decision to go into the machine. And why doubt your own decision?
That's a cool point. I personally have made horrible life choices in the past, though, and have repeatedly looked back on myself and wondered how I could have been so dumb. So this type of thinking certainly doesn't apply to me.
Red or blue pill?
neither, to be free you have to break out from system by force
So, isn't the conclusion to both iterations of this experiment, "people don't like change"? If so, did we really need an experiment to tell us that?