I just had the thought that we could distinguish between full-fledged monotony (where given any, even possibly null, propositions P, Q, and R, if P |- Q then P, R |- Q) and limited monotony (where given any propositions P and Q, if |- P then Q |- P).
Question: what is the oldest formulation of what we would today call the "hard problem"?
The earliest one I can find is from Leibniz in 1714.
I'm not sure what it would even look like in ancient philosophy, since their concept of consciousness was probably different. I'd be amazed if it weren't lurking in there somewhere, though.
In 1941, Norbert Weiner, one of the principle minds behind the science of cybernetics, acknowledged the problems of a capitalist information economy. Cybernetics, a discipline that sought a general theory of control and communication in animals and machines, was an interdisciplinary research program brought together in World War II to build weapons. Its development of theory of dynamic systems, information theory, and machine learning are influential to this day. After the war, these theories were carried over into psychological and social science, notably by Bateson.
For Weiner, capitalist competition for the means of control of social communication was a source of unpredictability and social chaos.
( Read more...Collapse )
For all predicates F, if there can exist an object x such that x exemplifies F then there exists an object y such that y encodes F.
it basically comes down to 4 questions,
do you make decisions?
do you make your decisions using recursive reasoning?
Can you model/simulate your decision making and that of others?
can you predict your own decisions before you make them?
I was out with a friend for a few beers and we got to talking on the universe and morality. She said we as humans create morality and the universe doesn't 'want' anything, so morality is purely subjective. I tried to argue that the universe 'wants' to continue to exist (or just continue to obey laws of nature) and therefore death/pain/destruction or anything that gets in the way of it existing/obeying is therefore objectively bad. She said the universe doesn't 'want', it just 'is' (I tend to agree but I was enjoying the conversation and wanted to bring up other thoughts if I could). I said that the universe behaves the way it behaves for a reason, something causes it to obey the laws of nature, something causes it to not just stand still, and that maybe 'want' is too human a word for why it behaves how it behaves, but it definitely does behave in a certain way. And I said it behaves in a matter than seems like death/destruction/unhappiness is not the goal. Note: we had had a few while trying to discuss this.
Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this? Any books on a topic similar to this? This all probably sounds incredibly unpolished and juvenile, forgive me! I just enjoy discussions like these.
I'm looking for clarity (or readings) on a thought I'm struggling with. In some cases, it seems pretty clear that to understand a thing you need some access to (knowledge of? understanding of?) the best of that thing. Take goodness. Things which are pretty awful have some goodness about them, but at first blush it looks like we're not going to find out much about the nature of goodness simply by looking at instances of rubbish. Not without some prior understanding of what goodness more or less looks like. Another example might be effort. If part of understanding effort is understanding that it can involve really giving it your all, we might never find out about this if we only looked at examples of half-arsed attempts at doing things.
But sometimes the thought doesn't really get off the ground. To understand what a school is it might be totally adequate to look at bad schools. Good and bad schools alike will have a range of class sizes, levels of truant, everything else I can think of. You might want to look at a good school to fully understand education, but I'm not sure you'll have an any way inadequate knowledge of what a school is, if you only look at bad schools.
I can't think what the distinction here is. I even wonder if there is one. On the one side, I wonder whether we could use complex inferences to work out that goodness must be this if we're told that it's shared by some number of diverse things. (I think this is impossible, but I'm not sure why I think this.) On the other side, you might think that one part of understanding what a school is understanding the average, say, classroom size. If good and bad schools have different averages, then if you consider only bad schools, your overall average will be off. This is trivial - but maybe I'm missing similar cases that are important.
Some examples are ambiguous, and perhaps helpful here. If an archer attempts to hit a target, it's natural to say that it is only if he hits it can we know what he was trying to hit. But of course if he shot enough arrows, we could probably work out what the target must be: we can work out what point is in the middle of all the shots, and figure that that was probably what he was after. But there are all sorts of issues raised by the example that I don't know how to deal with. Is the archer allowed to point to the target? Can he say he hit it, or say that it's a certain distance in a certain direction from what he did hit? This kind of communication isn't always possible: an artist can't tell us what she was trying to achieve by a painting without actually painting it. "I wanted it to be lonely", she could say: but we would need to know what sort of loneliness to really know what she meant: and telling us exactly what sort of loneliness is precisely what she is trying to do (inter alia) by painting. I don't know if we could come to know what sort of loneliness she is trying to achieve by looking at an array of her failed attempts to capture it. Maybe if there were an infinity of attempts we would be able to work it out - and I guess we would need the archer to shoot an infinity of arrows if we were to be sure that the target was in a certain place. (But maybe even an infinity wouldn't be enough: maybe he keeps aiming too far to the right.)
Now I bloody know this is said by very many people. I'm pretty sure it's in Plato and Hegel, as well as, I think, Emerson and Bradley. But I can't think of any more specific references, or even some terms to put into Google. And I'm sure there are some things people could say to me that would make some lightbulbs alight. So any help will be much appreciated!
Perhaps this is a rudimentary question, but it is one that has been bothering me.
I am reading through the bible, trying to figure out this whole religion thing that billions of other people on planet earth are really into.
Now, since I am a Westerner I started reading the Jewish bible, as the "Old Testament". I am familiar with the idea that Jesus was Jewish and he was very familiar with the old testament and the new testament is an update of that religion, so to speak. Hence why Christians recognize Jews as having an acceptable religion
From my understanding, Muslims believe in the old testament, and in Jesus (though he was only a profit and not God, nor did he come back to life) and that again, Islam is seen as an update--the final revelation of God.
I am completely at a loss for how either of these religions can claim this.
So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live to enter and occupy the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.
You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.
How on earth can either of these groups claim to accept the God of Abraham while they explicitly do (ie. they add to the so-called "old" testament of God) what they were explicitly prohibited from doing?
I'm sure apologists exist for it, but my brain cannot imagine how their arguments would go. God says that this is it, and you cannot add to it, nor detract from it.
I'm almost inclined to argue that such a passage implies literalism. I will not make that argument however.
Can anyone help me understand how, philosophically, theologically, the passage in Deuteronomy (and that sentiment iirc, is repeated elsewhere) is ignored so as to allow Jesus or Mohammed to update the old testament?
Ok ok ok. I have a confession to make.
I'm an atheist who has never read the bible.
My atheism comes not from disbelieving the words of the bible (since I am unfamiliar with them, I do not dispute them) but from a logical/rational standpoint. My lack of reading of the bible, has til now, been because it seemed inconsequential to my personal life.
Obviously so many *other* people care *so* deeply about it, that I decided to read through the bible, starting, of course, with the beginning.
A) What version(s) would you recommend? My buddy recommends NRSV, though I frequently just read the NIV on biblegateway.com or some such website
B) Any advice on guides to read alongside the bible? Remember this would be for an atheist--I'm not reading it the way a religious person might; I am curios as to the stories and the textual details that people cite (or inaccurately cite)
C) Can anybody help me understand why God lies to Adam about what will happen when he eats the apple? God says he will die; but Adam goes on to live 930 years, so the serpent spoke the truth and God lied. Why would God lie?
D) Any other atheists out there who have went from being non-believers who haven't read it, to non-believers who have read it? What's your biggest take-away from it?
I rather expect it will only strengthen my atheism, but I am certainly not opposed to the idea of God coming into my life. Just wish the ineffable would starting effing already.
Does anyone have an idea of what the best English translation of Croce's Aesthetic is?
P.S. While I'm here, are there particularly good or bad editions of Bradley's works I should know about?