6 ms·

>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 eve

by 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
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    >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 evidence becomes available. >That's self-referential application of the scientific method. Yes Vervaeke and other cognitive scientists cover this. But that is fundamentally different to recursion which has it's own form. Recursion is all knowing of it's internals, doesn't change or grow and has a limited or program-breaking number of executions. A mind may or may not have a recursive function, but it is not fundamentally recursive nor does recursion capture all there is to be a self, nor all the processes to discover all parts of a self. Which you have agreed with but to cover the ground for the sake of it, the next two paragraphs. To say 'self' and 'recursion' is the same is false, and to describe all philosophies as the same because they have the same errors is not correct. There are different ways to be wrong. We know the basics in many religions differ and work for others, we know there is a difference between opinions on gods, overarching stories. This is why we can rank Fiction books apart. Not all philosophies are the same, some are more true than others, to say otherwise is to eliminate all difference that can ever be and therefore all of reality, collapsing into nihilism. You can't claim all philosophy is equifinal and confluent without destroying the mode of thought itself. Now the meat, what you are trying to describe is a metaphysical structure that incorporates all philosophies in a similar structure. Vervaeke is further down this path than you and I suggest his discussions with Pageau. A metaphysical structure for bringing philosophy together has a better chance of success as it is predicated on a mode of being that is innocent of having to perform a useful task in the world. You can believe whatever your mind and social sphere is capable of believing and attempt to realize that belief in a political setting. Only then do you have the option to break that belief down into a philosophy and find out how flawed it was to begin with and how to actually implement it. Programming is just a tool, and trying to work a philosophy from it's function is a regression for the sake of productivity, the human application of that generated philosophy can be very useful, but it can't describe a metaphysical position as reality will tear it apart. So there is a self, we don't know all of it, and yes recursion is a small tool to be used in exploring that, but I reject the totality of your argument excepting that portion. The attempt to provide a veil for our thoughts with a technocratic philosophy is predictable on HN but insufficient for life.
igravious 7y ago
> Along the same lines - things that have different names (and even entirely different vocabularies) are not necessarily different. Obviously > There is a 1:1 correspondence between Logic, Type Theory and Category Theory - they are "the same" (up to isomorphism). I know. > At the highest level of abstraction all Philosophy is the same. It's all confluent and equifinal - all roads lead to Rome. That's sounds swell but I'd venture that it's a pretty vacuous statement. > Recursion/self-knowledge - a theory of "self". Let us part ways here, I wish you well on your journey.
- ukj 7y ago
  >That's sounds swell but I'd venture that it's a pretty vacuous statement. It's not vacuous - it's abstract. >Let us part ways here, I wish you well on your journey. Godspeed.

by ukj 7y ago

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
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >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 evidence becomes available. >That's self-referential application of the scientific method. Yes Vervaeke and other cognitive scientists cover this. But that is fundamentally different to recursion which has it's own form. Recursion is all knowing of it's internals, doesn't change or grow and has a limited or program-breaking number of executions. A mind may or may not have a recursive function, but it is not fundamentally recursive nor does recursion capture all there is to be a self, nor all the processes to discover all parts of a self. Which you have agreed with but to cover the ground for the sake of it, the next two paragraphs. To say 'self' and 'recursion' is the same is false, and to describe all philosophies as the same because they have the same errors is not correct. There are different ways to be wrong. We know the basics in many religions differ and work for others, we know there is a difference between opinions on gods, overarching stories. This is why we can rank Fiction books apart. Not all philosophies are the same, some are more true than others, to say otherwise is to eliminate all difference that can ever be and therefore all of reality, collapsing into nihilism. You can't claim all philosophy is equifinal and confluent without destroying the mode of thought itself. Now the meat, what you are trying to describe is a metaphysical structure that incorporates all philosophies in a similar structure. Vervaeke is further down this path than you and I suggest his discussions with Pageau. A metaphysical structure for bringing philosophy together has a better chance of success as it is predicated on a mode of being that is innocent of having to perform a useful task in the world. You can believe whatever your mind and social sphere is capable of believing and attempt to realize that belief in a political setting. Only then do you have the option to break that belief down into a philosophy and find out how flawed it was to begin with and how to actually implement it. Programming is just a tool, and trying to work a philosophy from it's function is a regression for the sake of productivity, the human application of that generated philosophy can be very useful, but it can't describe a metaphysical position as reality will tear it apart. So there is a self, we don't know all of it, and yes recursion is a small tool to be used in exploring that, but I reject the totality of your argument excepting that portion. The attempt to provide a veil for our thoughts with a technocratic philosophy is predictable on HN but insufficient for life.

igravious 7y ago

> Along the same lines - things that have different names (and even entirely different vocabularies) are not necessarily different. Obviously > There is a 1:1 correspondence between Logic, Type Theory and Category Theory - they are "the same" (up to isomorphism). I know. > At the highest level of abstraction all Philosophy is the same. It's all confluent and equifinal - all roads lead to Rome. That's sounds swell but I'd venture that it's a pretty vacuous statement. > Recursion/self-knowledge - a theory of "self". Let us part ways here, I wish you well on your journey.

ukj 7y ago
>That's sounds swell but I'd venture that it's a pretty vacuous statement. It's not vacuous - it's abstract. >Let us part ways here, I wish you well on your journey. Godspeed.