Are there philosophical questions for which humanity does not have the required cognitive capacity to answer? And can we assume that an AI Superintelligence, if it emerges before 2123, would be able to answer those questions between now and then?

Right now I assume that it is an ever-escalating problem…

the title and the description are very different. Philosophy won't be solved, there'll still be all sorts of questions

but we may dismiss a lot of the current questions as pseudoproblems and move on to new questions, which has happened quite a few times historically

Yes, because I have already solved it. Pose me a question here, or add me on discord yoohoo#1409 and I will prove this.

@hmys Define knowledge

I have no idea what opinions will be in 2123, but the trend over the last hundred years in analytic philosophy has been away from these sorts of views. And many analytic philosophers see the trend away from this as becoming more scientific more naturalistic and less arrogant about the ability of philosophy to solve problems all by itself by a unique method not used in other fields. (Note that philosophers tend to care more about what scientific theories appear to say, when interpreted literally, than what scientists will claim the theories "really" amount to when thinking philosophically about the nature of knowledge.)

Jacy's credences here are crazily overconfident, given the outside view evidence about how accurate anyone ever is about philosophy. 80% in verificationism when the view was debated to death for about 20 years with a result of almost zero verificationists left in the younger generation then coming up academically, and when correctness is operationalised* in terms of long-term consensus on reflection. 99% credence that he knows what consciousness is(!) 95% confidence in 1 boxing when it's not even the standard view amongst people who study this outside of the LW bubble (and also why don't the general reasons for thinking everything is a pseudo-problem apply to 'is one or two boxing rational?'; why can't that just be 'it depends on what you mean by 'rational'' or 'since we can't verify 'one-boxing is rational', the claim is not even false'): https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4886

Bear in mind I actually have maybe 55% credence that many philosophical problems are solvable by realizing that the terms involved have imprecise meanings, and everyone is right on some precisifications. So it's not the views I think are crazy, just the extreme confidence in them.

*'Given my views on the stance-dependence and pseudo-problem nature of most philosophical problems, the usual wording of philosophical beliefs such as, “Utilitarianism is correct” may be misleading. Therefore, I refer to such views as which is the “best” answer to the problem, where “best” means the approach that would be favored after a long period of careful reflection. This still has ambiguity, such as the likely dependence of careful reflection on the initial approach, but it seems sufficient for now'

What if a majority of philosophers believe this but it’s clearly one of those fads with a 20 year lifecycle

@xyz Should still resolve YES unless I'm misunderstanding @JacyAnthis's intention.

What does it even mean for philosophy to be "solved"? Philosophy is not a question that can be answered

@Odoacre Read the description. :)

No way. I think anyone who believes this is an accurate prediction needs to spend way more time around non-EAs, tbh. Will predict once I have a non-empty play-money balance.

Solipsism will win.