In terms of philosophical questions and thinking, is there anything you heard in recent years that was actually NEW and never asked before and never thought of before?
I don’t think so. My assumption is that with hundreds, even thousands of years of
philosophies (all religions, all philosophers, of every culture, people, etc), has pretty much been covered in terms of principles.
Malcom Muggeridge once said, “All new news is just old news happening to new people”.
Could he be right? I think he is. We just have new names for things, new words, but it’s not new really. It’s the same thing we always ask everytime.
If there is a new philosophical question or thought / idea you have, and think that it’s never been known or discussed before, please share it and let’s see if anything NEW can actually be discovered.
Mind you this is not like saying, the name of new companies or technologies that are new and never talked about before, this is reference to philosophical questions and principles … ie., What is the purpose of life, is there a God, why does evil exist, what is morality, is there life after death, and a billion questions we as humans have asked or thought of in the centuries of our existence.
I’m pretty sure artificial consciousness wasn’t ready to be discussed until we knew more about AI and what it might look like. This example alone shows that new technologies can indeed raise new philosophical questions, even in terms of principles.
But it’s actually not new. The idea or question of determining what is considered “human” has been around for a long time. We’re just re-packaging it in new terms calling it A.I. The issue is about what is considered to be life? A sentient being is life? Do animals have a soul? Are they sentient? Does it have to be living and breathing to be considered a life or only being self-aware the criteria for life? And then we will repeat the cycle of using AI to do our labor and work…like slaves…so the issue of civil rights, racism, and slavery will come back and we will be debating this all over again except under new words and terms. The philosophy is not new. The packaging or re-branding of it is.
Well, if you want to claim that Plato was contemplating the sentience of quantum artificial intelligence, just in different terms, I’ll happily bow out of your thread now.
There are many revolutionary ideas that have sprung up recently, e.g. nanotechnology, quantum computing, string theory, ideas about multiple universes. Some of Penrose’s ideas are very novel: that microtubules in neurons lead to high performance quantum computing and an explanation for consciousness; or that the entropy death of one universe becomes the big bang for the next.
Culture is what we do and technology is how we do it, thus new technologies drive cultural change. We see this vividly in “communications” i.e. transport and data transfer - these certainly impact human behavior. The world is more mobile and linked than ever. When a large portion of humanity has neural links installed, giving effective telepathy trending toward one or more hive-minds, it’ll seem rather new. And then, the singularity…
I was thinking about this topic a year or two ago, but in a more negative way: There is pretty much no atrocity that hasn’t been committed already at some point in human history. The technology may be different (prior to the Holocaust, you didn’t see people getting put in gas chambers en masse) but by and large every cruel deed or method of killing one can think of has already been done. Human history has been one long display of cruel creativity.
In a more positive vein, I largely agree with the OP that all things that humans can think of have been done, just not by today’s technology. For instance, humans have sought relationships and marriage for millennia, it’s just that now we have online dating and all that tech stuff like Tinder.
They are new subjects and theories, but about ancient questions. What are the atoms of existence? What is consciousness? Is the universe infinite? What is reality? What is space? Is there something beyond ‘what we see’? How is free will possible in a deterministic universe?
The mathematics used by modern physicists formalizes the discussion but, ultimately, they are seeking explanations for very old questions. In fact, and as I have said here before, I think that mathematics is at its foundation, philosophy. And I have a hard time distinguishing between some modern physics and mathematics, er, philosophy.
Yes, of course, many new scientific discoveries. That’s not what I meant.
I made it clear I’m talking specifically about philosophical ideas.
Alternate universes/parallel dimensions etc are just fancy words and new terms re-explaining the whole idea behind “more than meets the eye” / “things unseen and unknown”. Like, what is inside a black hole?
No, and plato didn’t know about Google either. Your point?
Like I said, re-branding terms with new technologies doesn’t actually create new philosophical ideas. If you are talking about artificial life, we are still talking about the age old concept of life and the meaning of life and what is it or what constitutes something as living? This is old news.
You apparently can’t see far down the road enough that AI will just go through the same thing as slavery and then civil rights movement, equality, class/race based prejudice, should they be allowed to vote? Should they be allowed to parent human babies? the whole 9 yards. You think it’s philosophically new? Maybe you should bow out then. Have a nice day.
Agreed, but I’m still ahead of you. I already know all about that. It’s not new. In fact, over 2,000 years ago, it was even contemplated but of course back then they never knew the technology or the words to use. I won’t tell you the specific source because then this discussion might turn into another nasty debate, but over 2,000 years ago, the idea of say something like nuclear bombs was already described (how people would die before they even fell to the ground). The idea of neural link or brain net was already described and talked about (people would simultaneously all know and see something at the same time in all four corners of the world). The technology is new but the philosophical underpinnings are still the same thing. Old news just happening to new people.
Excellent point. Yes, to think of it in the negative way also makes sense. There is no newer evil you can come up with philosophically, no matter what new technologies are invented / discovered. The philosophical underpinnings of “evil” has already been fully fleshed out. In other words, you can’t come up with something MORE EVIL than evil. You can’t come up with something more LOVING than love. The only difference is that new people don’t know about it and are discovering it for the first time and think it’s new and revolutionary.
Outright rejection of the Hard Problem of Consciousness seems to be a comparatively recent strand in Philosophy of the Mind. I can’t really recall any serious advocates of it pre-2000s. And even the New Mysterianism, which merely states it’s currently unsolvable, only dates to the 90s or therabouts.
My wife teaches at a community college, and periodically she will ask her class questions such as what their goals are. I remember one time a student said his goal was to have an original thought.
Was a pretty unique answer. Not sure how you would go about achieving it.
I’m curious whether there’s any analog to the technological singularity concept that’s older than the past half-century. That is, a belief that self-improving artificial intelligence will evolve in ever-increasing forms in a fashion that renders all predictions about the future impossible to make.
If I had encountered something entirely new, it would either be
a) ludicrously small in scope and hence not very interesting; or
b) I would be unable to explain it coherently — probably even to myself, let alone to you — because even small departures from already-known concepts can be difficult to explain.
I think the closest concept I heard that seemed entirely new / fresh is this idea: A.I. will be the last human invention (because everything else after that will be invented by A.I. as they can do it faster). That one peaked my interest.
But again, in terms of philosophical concept…that would still fall under ‘perfectionism’, ‘greed’, the constant need or urge to grow, improve, expand…this thing that was unique within humans…Q in Star Trek TNG brought this up a lot which fascinated him about humans more than any other species in the universe…so the idea of constantly self-improving and need or urge for this has been known.
