5 ms·

You've managed to smush five distinct (but incidentally) concepts/areas. (1) Floridi's multi-annual research project concerning information: http://www.philoso

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".
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Recursion is a looped form, it doesn't highlight any built in character traits or allow for revealing hidden unknowns. Abstractions that remove details do so to address part of a whole. You are missing a lot of the whole. There is more to a self than computing perspectives can describe. Throughout history people have used the most current technology as a metaphor for the mind, piston driven minds for ex. That philosophy had errors, as yours does too.
  - ukj 7y ago
    >Recursion is a looped form, it doesn't highlight any built in character traits or allow for revealing hidden unknowns. It highlights the fact that in order to develop a theory of "self" you have to observe yourself and confirm/reject some hypotheses as new information becomes available. That's self-referential application of the scientific method. >That philosophy had errors, as yours does too. Standard Philosophical response: You don't know what an "error" is to be making such assertions. Standard Scientific response: All models are wrong - some are useful. There is more to "self" than any language can describe (Gödel told us so) but any description/reference of "self" is (by definition) recursive and reflective. Like Metaprogramming [1] or something. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming

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".

friendlybus 7y ago
Recursion is a looped form, it doesn't highlight any built in character traits or allow for revealing hidden unknowns. Abstractions that remove details do so to address part of a whole. You are missing a lot of the whole. There is more to a self than computing perspectives can describe. Throughout history people have used the most current technology as a metaphor for the mind, piston driven minds for ex. That philosophy had errors, as yours does too.
- ukj 7y ago
  >Recursion is a looped form, it doesn't highlight any built in character traits or allow for revealing hidden unknowns. It highlights the fact that in order to develop a theory of "self" you have to observe yourself and confirm/reject some hypotheses as new information becomes available. That's self-referential application of the scientific method. >That philosophy had errors, as yours does too. Standard Philosophical response: You don't know what an "error" is to be making such assertions. Standard Scientific response: All models are wrong - some are useful. There is more to "self" than any language can describe (Gödel told us so) but any description/reference of "self" is (by definition) recursive and reflective. Like Metaprogramming [1] or something. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming