ukj

35 ms·

301.
by ukj 6y ago
Logic itself is a formalism. Subject to all the constraints of formal language theory/linguistics. It fails to address the symbol-grounding problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
302.
by ukj 6y ago
The notion of a "proof" is only meaningful in a formal context. Logic, mathematics, computer science, proof theory... same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory We are eternally stuck interpreting
303.
by ukj 6y ago
>1. There is no opposition between non-deterministic self-organization and quantification. You can measure metrics of any chaotic system. OK then. You've objectively measured that ethics (or health, or whatever metric you are going
304.
by ukj 6y ago
I am a proponent of objective/ inter-subjective morality. I am just not a proponent of it’s quantification. It emerges from self-organization - it isn’t deterministic. Measurements/quantities are about the past (a posteriori). Mor
305.
by ukj 6y ago
Health IS health. That is what “it” is. I am representing it by the identity function, because Holistically “health” is itself and nothing else (otherwise you are equivocating “health”). This is the first law of logic: identity. You insist
306.
by ukj 6y ago
Sure, lets go with your theory that "reductionism is the technical norm". Lets represent "health" as the identity function in Lambda calculus. λx.health This is equivalent to the English sentence "health is health&q
307.
by ukj 6y ago
That is a rather reductionist answer. Did you purposefully ignore my question? Holistically speaking, how do you propose we measure “health”? What sort of market compromise do you have in mind with regards to said measurement?
308.
by ukj 6y ago
Everything can be measured in principle and in practice. Are you hungry? Yes. That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger. Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is
309.
by ukj 6y ago
On the one hand you dislike semantics, on the other hand you want me to understand your meaning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am arguing that the social aspect of morality isn't about measurement, but about whose yardstick we should be using. Said
310.
by ukj 6y ago
I am not doing any of that. I am just using your own argument against you.
311.
by ukj 6y ago
What is your standard for "accuracy" ?
312.
by ukj 6y ago
Heh, how did I know you are going to appeal to infinity-categories at some point? "defining categories" and their respective categorisation rules is the process of classification. They don't account for the classifiers themse
313.
by ukj 6y ago
SUCC(0) is no explanation of 1, until you explain 0. Note how you are reaching for complex/abstract ideas (like a "topos" and "natural numbers") to explain simple/intuitive ones (like 0 and 1). "toposes&qu
314.
by ukj 6y ago
So, would that same reasoning apply to putting value in human lives? Is that an incentive to trick the measurement?
315.
by ukj 6y ago
What is your standard for "properness" ?
316.
by ukj 6y ago
Medice, cura te ipsum.
317.
by ukj 6y ago
I like terseness. Just because you haven't heard of something it doesn't preclude it from being a well-indexed idea in human folklore. Google is your friend.
318.
by ukj 6y ago
Clear to whom? The meaning of "1" is conventional/socially constructed. For the sake of argument I can conveniently forget what "1" means, and then you can try and explain it to me like I am from another planet. Sem
319.
by ukj 6y ago
That's the first error of the objectivists. Mistaking "blue" as a property of the sky. Color happens in your head. That is why trichromacy, tetrachromacy, pentachromacy, dodecachromacy etc. is a thing.
320.
by ukj 6y ago
This conception is highly susceptible to Goodhart's law. It favours the quantitative over the qualitative which is a good way to trip over the McNamara fallacy.
321.
by ukj 6y ago
Every question beggs another. Münchhausen trilemma All definitions are (meta)circular. Because language is recursive.
322.
by ukj 6y ago
The commonality you are referring to sounds like Chomsky's concept of Universal Grammar [1]. The object.method(args) "won" because it is a low barrier to entry from English to Programming indeed, but as you become more and mo
323.
by ukj 6y ago
Aware enough to claim that all arguments are smoke screens for people's innate biases. An ideal Bayesian would employ the principle of maximum entropy for choosing priors [1], soon to discover the problem of underdetermination [2]. Suc
324.
by ukj 6y ago
This is the same argument people made against MP3 compression. Lossy is bad. Humans will never stand for it. Perfections will not stand for it. Pragmatists won’t notice. This isn’t a bad thing. We need perfectionists to drag us across the “
325.
by ukj 6y ago
The observation that this pattern emerges recursively is totally valid. Just as we refactor code and add layers of abstraction, so we refactor org structures when certain teams become hotspots. The crux of the matter is that as organisation
326.
by ukj 6y ago
Sure. That is how perspectivism works. Or, if you want to stretch a metaphor you could say that terrorism/freedom-fighting are in superposition.
327.
by ukj 6y ago
Fun game to play with Linguistic prescriptivist (endearingly called Grammar Nazis) in 2020. Host your own dictionary and insist that theirs is wrong.
328.
by ukj 6y ago
Obviously you would think your definition is the “reasonable” one. Until you find yourself having to engage in terro^H^H^H^H^H freedom fighting to achieve your own political goals.
329.
by ukj 6y ago
Sounds like freedom fighting to me (given my biases).
330.
by ukj 6y ago
The ANC couldn't convince those in power to agree with them on the trivial matter of having their human rights recognised. They defined themselves as 'human'. Those in power rejected that definition. That's why they enga

More ›