4 ms·

Digital Philosophy [1] is not a new idea. As per the Wikipedia article it's a re-interpretation of Monist metaphysics. There's no easier way to say this withou

by ukj 7y ago

Digital Philosophy [1] is not a new idea. As per the Wikipedia article it's a re-interpretation of Monist metaphysics. There's no easier way to say this without triggering people who haven't yet reasoned their way to these positions so I am just going to say it. The concept of a Monad[2] in digital philosophy corresponds to the concept of God in Christian philosophy. See Computational Trinitarianism for more [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) [3] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trinitarianism https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trinitarianism

ppod 7y ago
That's fine in theory but my aunt isn't praying to Monad or declining to get her kids vaccinated because Monad will protect them.
- ukj 7y ago
  Your aunt has committed a Reification fallacy [1] because she doesn't understand the recursive/self-referential (e.g computational!) nature of the human mind. You aren't going to change her mind by Philosophising her, trying to explain the fallacy to her; or throwing evidence at her, but you may be able to reach her on a human level if you learn to talk to her in her language. The need to believe in a greater power (than the self) is rooted in a fear of the unknown - she can't cope with uncertainty. Most humans can't - don't holt it against them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
  - anongraddebt 7y ago
    Perhaps some non-naturalists are - deep down - motivated by a fear of the unknown. I myself (from all that I can gather) and many other non-naturalists I know, aren't so motivated. The majority of my close friends over the years have been naturalists, and if I was being uncharitable, I could say all of them are naturalists because of a fear and loathing of having something outside themselves set limits to their moral freedom or life choices. While some naturalists probably do, I don't say all of them or even most of them do because people are people everywhere. And generally speaking, many people follow arguments where they lead, given whatever epistemic tools they have available to them.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    This emotional reasoning is not much better than Star War's light side/dark side logic. Anger turns to hate, hate turns to suffering, ect. This kind of reasoning acts as if it can remove all else for the sake of a single revealed hidden feeling that guides belief. I think there are many factors that go into belief, emotions can have multiple outcomes and similarities between feelings and observed beliefs do not prove each other.
    - ukj 7y ago
      Strictly and formally speaking "proof" is impossible outside of deductive systems such as logic/mathematics. In non-axiomatic systems (such as reality) all you have is inductive reasoning, and all inductive theories are Underdetermined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        The idea that this is reality is a faith-based axiom, including the idea that all you have is inductive reasoning.
        ukj 7y ago
        Sure. And what about the idea that you have ideas? This is what I mean by self-reference being inescapable... You are welcome to perform deduction in practice, but you have no absolute truths to start deducing with. Everything that you consider to be an "absolute truth" has been arrived at by induction.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        Assuming your truths are reasoned then yes, but that is not the only way to have a truth. Second hand truths inherited from others can be instilled by an emotional relationship or claims of a spiritual experience from drug taking can generate psychological experiences that are sourced as more true than reason.
  - ppod 7y ago
    You've read a lot more into my comment than was there. My point is simply that your abstract philosophical equivalance between Monad and God does not correspond to how most people in the real world use their concept of God.
    - ukj 7y ago
      I understand your point. My is that you understand the abstract/concrete distinction. If you are to succeed at changing your aunt's mind the strategy you've chosen (evidence, reason, arguments, intellectual assault on her wrongness) probably won't work. In that regards Philosophers are completely irrational - they do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Persuasion is a multi-faceted skill.
- igravious 7y ago
  I took a slightly longer route to the same destination, see my sibling reply to yours!
igravious 7y ago
You've managed to smush five distinct (but incidentally) concepts/areas. (1) Floridi's multi-annual research project concerning information: http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/research/ http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/research/ The Logic of Information (vol. 3) follows Ethics of Information (vol. 2) follows Philosophy of Information (vol. 1), with one volume forthcoming The Politics of Information – what the entire research project is attempting to do is posit information as a basic term, an axiomatic or core concept in philosophy (like truth is, or beauty, or reason, etc.) and to add subject areas with information as their focus to the pantheon of philosophical subject areas … This is not the same research project as (2) which is readily apparent by perusing the list of researchers. Digital Philosophy flows from Digital Physics which posits that the structure of reality is discrete, essentially reducible to zeroes and ones; digital philosophy (in this sense) is the philosophical attitude that this view of reality is correct – confusingly there is another use of the term digital philosophy that is a sort of cognate of digital humanities and digital science insofar as those meta/mega-fields are related. I am not sure (even though it is asserted there by Wikipedia) that digital philosophy (in the first sense) is a re-interpretation of (3) Monadist metaphysics. NB: Monadist metaphysics is an example of a Monist metaphysics and shouldn't be conflated, any metaphysics which posits a supreme singular entity, another example is object-oriented ontology, or theologically the (4) singular supreme being of the Abrahamic religions. Thing is, yes they're related – don't conflate, smudge, equate, or treat them as identical – they're not. Lastly computational trinitarianism is a clever moniker for (5) the idea that logic, category theory, and type theory are three sides of the same coin. the monads of category theory and type theory are not the monads of Leibnizean Monadism. Don't confuse these ideas. --- What have we learnt from all this? Things that have similar names are not necessarily similar. Philosophy is hard. The review of Floridi's work linked here is an okay jumping off point but there is nothing like reading the work for itself. I have read most of Floridi's 4th Revolution, his Very Short Introduction and most of his Philosophy of Information. I'd probably read them in the order he intended them to be read if I were you. Whether h has re-conceptualised much of philosophy is debatable but given we live in the information age he certainly is striking close to the bone in my opinion.
- ukj 7y ago
  >What have we learnt from all this? Things that have similar names are not necessarily similar Along the same lines - things that have different names (and even entirely different vocabularies) are not necessarily different. There is a 1:1 correspondence between Logic, Type Theory and Category Theory - they are "the same" (up to isomorphism). The science of abstraction hinges on the very concepts of "similarity" and "difference" - any two things are "the same" if you remove enough details. At the highest level of abstraction all Philosophy is the same. It's all confluent and equifinal - all roads lead to Rome. Recursion/self-knowledge - a theory of "self".

by ukj 7y ago

ppod 7y ago

That's fine in theory but my aunt isn't praying to Monad or declining to get her kids vaccinated because Monad will protect them.

ukj 7y ago
Your aunt has committed a Reification fallacy [1] because she doesn't understand the recursive/self-referential (e.g computational!) nature of the human mind. You aren't going to change her mind by Philosophising her, trying to explain the fallacy to her; or throwing evidence at her, but you may be able to reach her on a human level if you learn to talk to her in her language. The need to believe in a greater power (than the self) is rooted in a fear of the unknown - she can't cope with uncertainty. Most humans can't - don't holt it against them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  Perhaps some non-naturalists are - deep down - motivated by a fear of the unknown. I myself (from all that I can gather) and many other non-naturalists I know, aren't so motivated. The majority of my close friends over the years have been naturalists, and if I was being uncharitable, I could say all of them are naturalists because of a fear and loathing of having something outside themselves set limits to their moral freedom or life choices. While some naturalists probably do, I don't say all of them or even most of them do because people are people everywhere. And generally speaking, many people follow arguments where they lead, given whatever epistemic tools they have available to them.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  This emotional reasoning is not much better than Star War's light side/dark side logic. Anger turns to hate, hate turns to suffering, ect. This kind of reasoning acts as if it can remove all else for the sake of a single revealed hidden feeling that guides belief. I think there are many factors that go into belief, emotions can have multiple outcomes and similarities between feelings and observed beliefs do not prove each other.
  - ukj 7y ago
    Strictly and formally speaking "proof" is impossible outside of deductive systems such as logic/mathematics. In non-axiomatic systems (such as reality) all you have is inductive reasoning, and all inductive theories are Underdetermined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      The idea that this is reality is a faith-based axiom, including the idea that all you have is inductive reasoning.
      - ukj 7y ago
        Sure. And what about the idea that you have ideas? This is what I mean by self-reference being inescapable... You are welcome to perform deduction in practice, but you have no absolute truths to start deducing with. Everything that you consider to be an "absolute truth" has been arrived at by induction.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        Assuming your truths are reasoned then yes, but that is not the only way to have a truth. Second hand truths inherited from others can be instilled by an emotional relationship or claims of a spiritual experience from drug taking can generate psychological experiences that are sourced as more true than reason.
- ppod 7y ago
  You've read a lot more into my comment than was there. My point is simply that your abstract philosophical equivalance between Monad and God does not correspond to how most people in the real world use their concept of God.
  - ukj 7y ago
    I understand your point. My is that you understand the abstract/concrete distinction. If you are to succeed at changing your aunt's mind the strategy you've chosen (evidence, reason, arguments, intellectual assault on her wrongness) probably won't work. In that regards Philosophers are completely irrational - they do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Persuasion is a multi-faceted skill.
igravious 7y ago
I took a slightly longer route to the same destination, see my sibling reply to yours!

igravious 7y ago

You've managed to smush five distinct (but incidentally) concepts/areas. (1) Floridi's multi-annual research project concerning information: http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/research/ http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/research/ The Logic of Information (vol. 3) follows Ethics of Information (vol. 2) follows Philosophy of Information (vol. 1), with one volume forthcoming The Politics of Information – what the entire research project is attempting to do is posit information as a basic term, an axiomatic or core concept in philosophy (like truth is, or beauty, or reason, etc.) and to add subject areas with information as their focus to the pantheon of philosophical subject areas … This is not the same research project as (2) which is readily apparent by perusing the list of researchers. Digital Philosophy flows from Digital Physics which posits that the structure of reality is discrete, essentially reducible to zeroes and ones; digital philosophy (in this sense) is the philosophical attitude that this view of reality is correct – confusingly there is another use of the term digital philosophy that is a sort of cognate of digital humanities and digital science insofar as those meta/mega-fields are related. I am not sure (even though it is asserted there by Wikipedia) that digital philosophy (in the first sense) is a re-interpretation of (3) Monadist metaphysics. NB: Monadist metaphysics is an example of a Monist metaphysics and shouldn't be conflated, any metaphysics which posits a supreme singular entity, another example is object-oriented ontology, or theologically the (4) singular supreme being of the Abrahamic religions. Thing is, yes they're related – don't conflate, smudge, equate, or treat them as identical – they're not. Lastly computational trinitarianism is a clever moniker for (5) the idea that logic, category theory, and type theory are three sides of the same coin. the monads of category theory and type theory are not the monads of Leibnizean Monadism. Don't confuse these ideas. --- What have we learnt from all this? Things that have similar names are not necessarily similar. Philosophy is hard. The review of Floridi's work linked here is an okay jumping off point but there is nothing like reading the work for itself. I have read most of Floridi's 4th Revolution, his Very Short Introduction and most of his Philosophy of Information. I'd probably read them in the order he intended them to be read if I were you. Whether h has re-conceptualised much of philosophy is debatable but given we live in the information age he certainly is striking close to the bone in my opinion.

ukj 7y ago
>What have we learnt from all this? Things that have similar names are not necessarily similar Along the same lines - things that have different names (and even entirely different vocabularies) are not necessarily different. There is a 1:1 correspondence between Logic, Type Theory and Category Theory - they are "the same" (up to isomorphism). The science of abstraction hinges on the very concepts of "similarity" and "difference" - any two things are "the same" if you remove enough details. At the highest level of abstraction all Philosophy is the same. It's all confluent and equifinal - all roads lead to Rome. Recursion/self-knowledge - a theory of "self".