This actually reminds me of the Plato/Artistotele difference. Plato held that there was an ideal, perfect version of everything in a sort of Idea Heaven, and the goal of the philosopher was to get ever closer to understanding that ideal.
Aristotele, on the other hand, thought that Heaven was too remote, and held that we could learn more by measuring what we see in this world. As opposed to the presumably ideal, but unaccessible, concepts in Heaven.
The medieval church loved Plato, the scientific revolution loved Aristotele.
My point is that the difference between these two frameworks for interpreting the world seems to be fundamental. Fundamental in the sense that the distinction has been with us for at least a couple of milennia, and we are apparently not likely to agree on a single answer anytime soon.
It's funny you bring this up, because Platonic idealism has been thoroughly debunked in the past century. Some of the latest thinking on the subject is known as "new materialism," and its core tenet is exactly the "technical evolution" that Yossi talks about in the article. I recommend Manuel de Landa's War in the Age of Intelligent Machines for an introduction (it's as near to a hacker's philosophy book as I've seen).
Aristotele, on the other hand, thought that Heaven was too remote, and held that we could learn more by measuring what we see in this world. As opposed to the presumably ideal, but unaccessible, concepts in Heaven.
The medieval church loved Plato, the scientific revolution loved Aristotele.
My point is that the difference between these two frameworks for interpreting the world seems to be fundamental. Fundamental in the sense that the distinction has been with us for at least a couple of milennia, and we are apparently not likely to agree on a single answer anytime soon.