ukj

34 ms·

331.
by ukj 6y ago
Why are you interpreting it that way? Labeling actions is exactly what I did. The acton was "blowing up a bar full of civilians". You labelled that action as 'terrorism'. The ANC labelled that action as 'freedom fig
332.
by ukj 6y ago
The ANC engaged in blowing up a bar full of civilians. Was that an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing
333.
by ukj 6y ago
The person who blew up the bus and everybody who supports their actions defined it as 'freedom fighting'. That is how they justified killing civilians to themselves. Casualties of war. Just a short excursion into recent history: N
334.
by ukj 6y ago
>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freed
335.
by ukj 6y ago
I understand what you are saying. You are not seeing that it doesn't work. Instead of calling you a 'terrorist' (noun). I can simply describe your actions/behaviour as 'terrorising' (verb). Whether I classify y
336.
by ukj 6y ago
Why? Exactly as you proposed: An X is somebody who engages in X. If you are engaging in terrorism then you are a terrorist. If you are engaging in freedom fighting then you are a freedom fighter. You say you are engaging in freedom fighting
337.
by ukj 6y ago
And freedom fighters are by definition people committing freedom fighting. >What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because di
338.
by ukj 6y ago
And you'll get no further than 'A terrorist is a person who engages in terrorism'. And then the debate is still exactly where we left off. Was that person engaging in X, or was he engaging in Y? X = Terrorism, Y = Freedom fig
339.
by ukj 6y ago
OK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
340.
by ukj 6y ago
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
341.
by ukj 6y ago
Language evolves. Use and meaning of words changes over time. Logocentrists are surprised. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
342.
by ukj 6y ago
If you trawl Girard’s papers you will find him saying at least these two things: Logic is subjective. Logic is implicit - will never be explicit. “The symbol speaks for itself” is the notion of denotational semantics mathematicians use. I a
343.
by ukj 6y ago
"Computer" used to be a job description before it acquired its modern meaning... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description)
344.
by ukj 6y ago
I would say each of them had a different implementations of the eval() function.
345.
by ukj 6y ago
It sounds to me that what you are labelling as 'Academic philosophy' (solving abstract problems) is very much the general process of meta-linguistic abstraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalinguistic_ab
346.
by ukj 6y ago
1. There are no foundations - it's turtles all the way down. 2. Recursion is the foundation. 3. This is a true contradiction.
347.
by ukj 6y ago
We have symbolic expression in programming languages already. It helps somewhat, but it isn’t a panacea. We still have to comment our code and add context.
348.
by ukj 6y ago
The crux of Wittgenstein can be summed up thus (and I am totally stealing this from Jean-Yves Girard). It's not about the rules of logic, it's about the logic of rules [1] The axioms and deductive rules of ALL formal languages are
349.
by ukj 6y ago
Somebody should tell Philosophers about the Curry-Howard-Lambek isomorphism. Because that's all there is to the Mathematical notion of "rigorous proof". And the 'next step' in scaling up this process is the mission
350.
by ukj 6y ago
You've noticed that other people's narratives/beliefs are internally inconsistent. Perhaps you haven't noticed that this technique can be applied to your own narratives/beliefs? Because your beliefs are inconsistent
351.
by ukj 6y ago
The joke is that Wittgenstein's statements are the axioms/rules for the language game he intends to play. And then he proceeds to play the language game he said he is going to play given his interpretation of the rules he set fort
352.
by ukj 6y ago
The whole point of forgetfulness is to have less “memory” to trawl when making decisions. Notes are the worst kind of memory with the highest seek latency. I am in the business of making good choices - not remembering when, where, how and w
353.
by ukj 6y ago
Underdetermination is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination This is clos
354.
by ukj 6y ago
Well, no - it's the foundational problem of knowledge/epistemology. How you choose to "solve" it is up to you. The solution computer scientists like a lot is coherentism. You pull yourself up by the bootstraps - like we
355.
by ukj 6y ago
Over-achievement of my goals is not my goal.
356.
by ukj 6y ago
ML took your job.
357.
by ukj 6y ago
If you expect 100% correctness you are not a very practical man. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
358.
by ukj 6y ago
This seems irrelevant. Neither humans nor ML make zero errors. Ceteris paribus, if an ML algorithm makes fewer errors at a task which with low error tolerance - you would use the algorithm instead of the human, no?
359.
by ukj 6y ago
So, the mistakes algorithms make are different to the mistakes humans make? That’s... equivocation. Both humans and ML algorithms are flexible. That is the point of “learning”. Adaptation.
360.
by ukj 6y ago
99% of the time it works all of the time. Like humans. How do we deal with problematic humans? Retraining or replacement.

More ›