ukj

44 ms·

421.
by ukj 7y ago
That seems like a verbalistic notion of 'understanding'. How do I falsify the expert's claims about my understanding?
422.
by ukj 7y ago
The only way to test if you've 'understood' something is to apply it to real-world problems. If it works - then you understood it. If it doesn't - then you didn't. "Understanding" without way of external v
423.
by ukj 7y ago
+10000 Mathematics is a user interface. Black ink on white paper is the medium which we've been using to communicate complex concepts/ideas for thousands of years. In 2020 there are better communication mediums. Interactive medium
424.
by ukj 7y ago
I am not convinced. Most mathematicians embrace denotational semantics, but most engineers intuitively default to operational semantics, because ultimately, we need to make choices/trade-offs that have consequences which are too comple
425.
by ukj 7y ago
I believe that I don't have any beliefs. You might recognise the above as a manifestation of the Liar's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox Depending on your predisposition, that's either
426.
by ukj 7y ago
>You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (
427.
by ukj 7y ago
That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work. You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet... You are imposing your language&#x
428.
by ukj 7y ago
There may well be a method to “science” (whatever that is), or acquiring knowledge in general. Is just that we haven’t invented the ‘right’ language to describe the process with. Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a com
429.
by ukj 7y ago
Have you heard of Aumann’s agreement theorem? [1] Consensus is possible, provided that the interlocutor have a shared goal and maximize for information exchange. Otherwise, the whole notion of discussing one’s “beliefs“ is philosophical (no
430.
by ukj 7y ago
This is so predictable. 1. Author attacks premise of dynamic type systems argument. 2. Author presents premise for static type system (which is practically confluent/equivalent/equifinal to premise he just undermined). >static
431.
by ukj 7y ago
Intuitionism/constructivism has gained much momentum in recent years. It is the foundation for Hawking’s model-dependent realism [1]; or more radically Dummett’s anti-realism [2]. Speaking purely about Mathematics - there have been gre
432.
by ukj 7y ago
Once you are in the realm of implementation Philosophical/theoretical idealism goes out the window. No story survives contact with reality, and that is all Philosophy gives us - stories. A.k.a theories. Risk management requires counter
433.
by ukj 7y ago
> Edit: My comment is basically asking what saying "the mind is a Turing machine" really means. It means that if we internalise this idea we can use all the language we have developed to say precise things about computers/
434.
by ukj 7y ago
>this in particular just strikes me as hard to believe / failing Occam's razor Reality owes us nothing - not even simple laws of physics. Occam's razor is a pragmatic (human) bias - reality needs not adhere to it. In fact,
435.
by ukj 7y ago
>The meat of your content is to just ask back at me what I'm giving you. You keep misunderstanding. Intentionally, I imagine (par for the Philosophical course). The meat of my content it: What do you want?
436.
by ukj 7y ago
>If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. I was not aware I was under attack, so I felt no need to defend myself. If you are attacking - let me know. > How does the purpose of the argume
437.
by ukj 7y ago
Sure. And what about the idea that you have ideas? This is what I mean by self-reference being inescapable... You are welcome to perform deduction in practice, but you have no absolute truths to start deducing with. Everything that you cons
438.
by ukj 7y ago
I understand your point. My is that you understand the abstract/concrete distinction. If you are to succeed at changing your aunt's mind the strategy you've chosen (evidence, reason, arguments, intellectual assault on her wro
439.
by 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 o
440.
by ukj 7y ago
>I don't need to comment, and neither do you. We're both just silly people talking about things that we don't understand, because our egos won't let us not say anything. This reply made me laugh. You get 10 points for
441.
by ukj 7y ago
>the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean It's all just words - Philosophical language games [1]. Physical and non-physical are just words that we, humans made up. They are concepts - useful distinctions.
442.
by 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.
443.
by 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 commen
444.
by ukj 7y ago
Strictly and formally speaking "proof" is impossible outside of deductive systems such as logic/mathematics. In non-axiomatic systems (such as reality) all you have is inductive reasoning, and all inductive theories are Under
445.
by ukj 7y ago
Disclaimer: take everything I say with a pinch of salt and form your own ideas. Philosophy is about the journey, not the destination. With regards to danger this 5 minute video [1] by Stephen Fry conveys a powerful idea. I think all of West
446.
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 co
447.
by ukj 7y ago
Because nobody has a good idea where the brain (hardware) stops and where "the mind" (software) starts [1]. And nobody has any idea what "information" is beyond the Mathematical equation which define it. They are just li
448.
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
449.
by ukj 7y ago
Your aunt has committed a Reification fallacy [1] because she doesn't understand the recursive/self-referential (e.g computational!) nature of the human mind. You aren't going to change her mind by Philosophising her, trying
450.
by ukj 7y ago
To be a good Philosopher is to understand the limits and dangers of language. By beginning to treat the concept (e.g something in our heads) of Information as physical [1] (e.g outside of our heads) we are committing a Reification fallacy

More ›