4 ms·

>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

by 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.
- ukj 7y ago
  >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. Did you miss my original comment where I said that the very notion of "sameness" and "difference" is the foundation of abstraction and therefore entirely subjective? To you 'self' and 'recursion' are different. To me - they are 'the same'. You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. I know how to think for myself and make up my own mind - give me the information I require. Spare me the arguments. >You can't claim all philosophy is equifinal and confluent without destroying the mode of thought itself. I am claiming it. And yet here we are - still thinking, talking, doing what we were doing before I claimed it. No destruction took place. I guess your hypothesis is wrong? >I reject the totality of your argument. That's fine with me, because I wasn't really arguing. Idiots argue. Humans communicate.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    >You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. >I know how to think for myself and make up my own mind - give me the information I require. Spare me the arguments. I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Then why talk? You are pointless to 'communicate' with. One way streets lead nowhere. It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed, particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change.
    - ukj 7y ago
      >I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Your ad-hominem has been noted. >Then why talk? Why not? > You are pointless to 'communicate' with. In the words of Wittgenstein "Languages are used to obtain certain ends within communities. Two people participating in two different language-games cannot be said to communicate in any relevant way." So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. >You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. Logic is Metaphysics. I'd like to see you do Philosophy without logic. > So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed. Category theory is Mathematics. Mathematics is logic. Your claim of "destruction" is contradicted for a second time. Is there anything I can say to convince you that you are wrong? >particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change. This is a lie. I will change my mind upon the presentation of the information required to change it. It's called a Bayesian update. If Philosophy is the pursuit of Truth, why are you telling lies about me? But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. >It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots.

by ukj 7y ago

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.

ukj 7y ago
>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. Did you miss my original comment where I said that the very notion of "sameness" and "difference" is the foundation of abstraction and therefore entirely subjective? To you 'self' and 'recursion' are different. To me - they are 'the same'. You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. I know how to think for myself and make up my own mind - give me the information I require. Spare me the arguments. >You can't claim all philosophy is equifinal and confluent without destroying the mode of thought itself. I am claiming it. And yet here we are - still thinking, talking, doing what we were doing before I claimed it. No destruction took place. I guess your hypothesis is wrong? >I reject the totality of your argument. That's fine with me, because I wasn't really arguing. Idiots argue. Humans communicate.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. >I know how to think for myself and make up my own mind - give me the information I require. Spare me the arguments. I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Then why talk? You are pointless to 'communicate' with. One way streets lead nowhere. It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed, particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change.
  - ukj 7y ago
    >I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Your ad-hominem has been noted. >Then why talk? Why not? > You are pointless to 'communicate' with. In the words of Wittgenstein "Languages are used to obtain certain ends within communities. Two people participating in two different language-games cannot be said to communicate in any relevant way." So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. >You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. Logic is Metaphysics. I'd like to see you do Philosophy without logic. > So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed. Category theory is Mathematics. Mathematics is logic. Your claim of "destruction" is contradicted for a second time. Is there anything I can say to convince you that you are wrong? >particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change. This is a lie. I will change my mind upon the presentation of the information required to change it. It's called a Bayesian update. If Philosophy is the pursuit of Truth, why are you telling lies about me? But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. >It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots.