Samuel Loncar

Phone call 12/8/17 3pm



Science vs Religion and Other Modern Myths

Some books are only written because others are not read.

The Vibrant Religious Life of Silicon Valley, and Why It’s Killing the Economy

Becoming gods, skin bags, religion of technology (reversing effects of the Fall)

Assuming massive unemployment, UBI

Information should be free

Micro-payments for micro use of goods (back propagation of value)

How to Be Human in a Machine World

“What are the activities that we humans, driven by our deepest nature or by the realities of daily life, will simply insist be performed by other humans, regardless of what computers can do?”

“To look into someone’s eyes—that turns out to be, metaphorically and quite often literally, the key to high-value work in the coming economy….” In short, he sees the new economy requiring a shift from an emphasis on thinking to a focus on feeling. Rather than focus on what we know or think, “The skills that become increasingly valuable as technology advances are about what we’re like.” On Colvin’s view, the distinguishing human attribute in such a world is empathy, which he sees as understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately.


Justified Ignorance

Known Unknowns vs Unknown Unknowns

Specialization in natural sciences

Clearly justified why biologists don’t need to be up to date with frontiers of quantum mechanics.

Irrelevance response

History of philosophy is not relevant to philosophers doing philosophy.

Impossibility response

Acquiescence Response

But I am not ignorant of the relevant alternatives, and where it appears I am, I can give an argument as to why some alternatives that may be con- strued as relevant are not in fact so, thus justifying my ignorance of positions based on them.

Justified Ignorance Skeptic

Why should I regard your view of x as true when you are not even aware of the existing alternatives, much less able to provide reasons for why your approach is better?

Responding to IR Quine quip

Alasdair MacIntyre, for example, responds to Quine’s quip as follows: “On the view that I have just sketched [of the importance of the history of philosophy for philoso- phy], the counter-joke is: the people interested in philosophy now are doomed to become those whom only those interested in the history of philosophy are going to be interested in in a hundred years’ time. So the philosophical nullifying of the past by this conception of the rela- tionship of past and presents turns out to be a way of nullifying our- selves in advance” (1984, 40).

Popper’s response (I suppose)

It’s less-efficient to ask everyone to be aware of all relevant views on a subject before putting forth any new ones. Instead, we can merely allow people to put forth any old ideas, and trust that the community will offer the criticism from relevant sources when necessary.