[HN Gopher] The Philosopher Who Believes in Living Things ___________________________________________________________________ The Philosopher Who Believes in Living Things Author : lermontov Score : 21 points Date : 2023-03-01 20:32 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com) | UncleOxidant wrote: | https://archive.is/wbnKq | avgcorrection wrote: | HN: Ascribing agency to things is silly. It's all just cause and | effect. | | Also HN: This program is my new search engine and chat buddy. | Shouldn't we face the possibility that it might have a sort of | sentience? | skadamou wrote: | I suppose every way of understanding (even scientific laws) is | just a model for how things might work. Some of these models | (Newton's laws of motion) are more useful than others but are | obviously still fallible (Relativity being a correction to | Newton's laws). I'm not sure how useful of a model animism is but | maybe it's reasonable to keep it in mind for some edge cases? | Even if it is just emotionally satisfying, I guess that's kind of | an edge case. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | Science is based on chasing the gods out of natures. We talk | about cold and warm fronts and circulatory patterns instead of | Thor being angry. | | Ascribing agency to inanimate things is a return to the pre- | scientific past and an abandonment of science. | | I rather happen to like my antibiotics and weather prediction | more than sacrifices to the gods. | edgyquant wrote: | >Ascribing agency to inanimate things is a return to the pre- | scientific past and an abandonment of science. | | This is just so wrong. That these things are inanimate is not a | scientific view it is an interpretation, period. People are | allowed to interpret the world in other ways and most of the | greatest scientific minds did not have this atheistic view. If | you look you'll find this is a relatively modern condescension. | | >I rather happen to like my antibiotics and weather prediction | more than sacrifices to the gods. | | This is hyperbole at best. Irrelevant to the discussion. | LesZedCB wrote: | I figure this would be the kind of response to this article | here. | | please I highly recommend Facing Gaia by Bruno Latour, | mentioned in the article. he's not by any stretch anti-science. | it's about recognizing that's things as such have agency, even | if they are "inanimate" and when we treat them that way we are | actually better prepared to deal with the impact they impose. | | in fact, his probably most famous work, We Have Never Been | Modern specifically addresses the concern you raise, with | regard to exactly what science is supposed to be. but you have | to read trying to understand that science ignores philosophy at | its own peril. | ergonaught wrote: | Unless and until someone can identify how chemical reactions | possess any degree of agency regarding their reaction, people | making such assertions are divorced from fact, reality, and | science. | | They are expressing wholly unsupported beliefs. | | That's fine, but beliefs aren't knowledge, and they aren't | science, and they have nothing at all going for them anymore | except that they make people feel warm fuzzies. Those aren't | science either. | | Philosophers have a relevance problem, but as long as you can | slap "quantum" on any jumble of nonsense and have a million | people agree with it, they'll at least have an audience. | Errancer wrote: | But Latour is precisely doing what you demand in the first | paragraph. The fact that he is claimed to be anti- | scientific is extremely ironic. His counter-intuitive | conclusions come from the attempt of defending science | because the traditional accounts failed. You use "fact", | "reality", "science", "beliefs", "knowledge" without any | degree of irony but do you know how hard it is to defend | them on the philosophical grounds? Most people are naive | positivists and even positivists from Vienna circle quickly | gave up on such positions because they were so hard to | maintain. Latour was not a stupid opportunist and you can | find this in his biography. If you think he was wrong then | first make sure you understand what he was even trying to | argue for. Without this understanding how can you square | your claims about knowledge and your actions? Do you | believe that your opinions have no metaphysical assumptions | whatsoever? Or do you think that your opinions are true so | you can a priori deny any contrary opinions as false? | LesZedCB wrote: | unless you can demonstrate we humans are more than chemical | reactions and physics, can can it be any other way than | highly complex, emergent systems based in the laws of | physics and chemistry are capable of exhibiting what we | both call "human agency?" | | systems theory is the crux here. and Latour's Actor Network | Model is basically just systems theory. if you refrain from | reducing the scope of your systems to a single chemical | reaction but looks at the complex interplay withing | systems, you start to see what I'm actually talking about. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > it's about recognizing that's things as such have agency, | even if they are "inanimate" | | From the article: | | _" A piece of shiny plastic on the street pulls your eye | toward it, turning your body in a different direction--which | might make you trip over your own foot and then smash your | head on the concrete, in a series of events that's the very | last thing you planned or intended. Who has "acted" in such a | scenario? You have, of course. Human beings have agency. But, | in her telling, the piece of plastic acted, too. It made | something happen to you."_ | | No, your reaction to seeing the shiny plastic on the ground | is what happened to you. Your brain recognized it as | something potentially interesting and/or valuable. The shiny | piece of plastic did not somehow will you to pick it up, it | cannot and does not have agency. I can't believe I'm having | the conversation on HN. WTF is going on? | | EDIT: Thought experiement: If you were blind or it was night | time and you were walking by the shiny plastic you would not | even notice it to pick it up. | shaunxcode wrote: | not even a mention of animism? | UncleOxidant wrote: | The word isn't used, but isn't that exactly what's being | described? | krapp wrote: | Yes, it's weird. The article even claims the premise begins | with French philosopher Bruno Latour, but this just seems | like a modern interpretation of the oldest metaphysical | framework in human history. | causality0 wrote: | The modernity of the nonsense seems to matter more to the HN | front page these days more than the degree to which something is | nonsense. | | _According to Bennett, hoarders are highly attuned to these | truths, which many of us ignore._ | | And here is where she completely loses the plot. Up until that | point it's kind of a bass-ackward way of acknowledging that human | beings are not special and not fundamentally different from the | world around us. Her "everything is magic" conclusion is 180 | degrees off correct, which is that nothing is magic, including | human agency. | UncleOxidant wrote: | _" If the Mississippi possesses anything at all, it is agency- | such a powerful agency that it imposes itself on the agency of | both regular people and the Army Corps of Engineers."_ | | No, the Mississippi is a river: A collection of water acted upon | by gravity and weather. It does not have agency - the Mississippi | cannot decide to flood a town or breach a levy. | animal_spirits wrote: | I don't see how that is any different than a human being. We | are all just a collection of particles being acted upon by | certain fundamental laws of the universe. Why do you think | you're so different? | UncleOxidant wrote: | Computation and information. | animal_spirits wrote: | Can you elaborate? | LesZedCB wrote: | don't you think it's funny in your counterpoint to inanimate | objects being agents you literally use the word "acted on?" | | > A collection of water acted upon by gravity and weather | | that's the point of the Actor Network Theory. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-02 23:00 UTC)