PD: Yesterday I saw an advertising in a wall: "Metaphysical Tarot, call (number)"
2013/9/9 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> > John: > I have been working in AI and I can say you that such indetermination in > the concepts is very common when software designers create their semantic > networks, specially when trying to mimic how human reasoning. That is > unavoidable, because both Philosophers and AI experts try to define the > basic human concepts, the structure of the mind and how it works. To have a > clear definition of something you need clear defined base concepts in terms > of which you combine them to get a definition. But what happens when we are > defining such fundamental concepts? There is no possible clear definition. > you go around and around until you find either more basic concepts in terms > of which yo define your previous basic concepts or you create circular > definitions among fundamental concepts. > > But if you don´t accept the challenge, you will never push the limits of > human knowledge about basic and deep human questions that preoccupied the > ancient philosophers. Modernity can be seen as the renounce of this > challenge. Not only the renounce to take this challenge seriously, but to > feel discomfort and anger when someone take such challenge seriously. > > It is not a surprise to find that this hole is now being filled with new > age crap and esoteric charlatans, Hollywood philosophers and TV starts. > That is because people can not live without finding responses to such deep > questions (and this has a clear evolutionary explanation, to give a hook > for your reductionist mind). > > What in the past was the preoccupation of people like Socrates, Plato > Aristotle, Aquinas, Heiddegger etc to name a few examples, it is now the > task of people like Oprah > > > 2013/9/6 John Clark <[email protected]> > >> This is what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have >> sent the following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to >> signifacantly contribute to global warming, >> >> * I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But >> if I do [blah blah] >> >> * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then? >> >> * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah] >> >> * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah >> blah] >> >> * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah] >> >> * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for >> free will to exist. >> >> * Are you maintain that the experience of free will does not itself exist? >> >> * Can you conceive of “free will” without introducing a subject in which >> it arises and is experienced? >> >> And so it goes, on and on arguing about if free will exists or not, but >> never once does anybody stop to ask what the hell "free will" means before >> giving their opinion about it's existence. People argue passionately but >> they don't know what they're talking about, by that I don't mean that what >> they are saying is wrong, I mean that they quite literally DON'T KNOW WHAT >> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> >> When he was a student at Princeton Richard Feynman had an encounter with >> philosophers, years later this is what he had to say about it and why he >> developed a contempt not for philosophy but for philosophers. I gave this >> quotation before but apparently it needs repeating: >> >> "In the Graduate College dining room at Princeton everybody used to sit >> with his own group. I sat with the physicists, but after a bit I thought: >> It would be nice to see what the rest of the world is doing, so I'll sit >> for a week or two in each of the other groups. >> >> When I sat with the philosophers I listened to them discuss very >> seriously a book called Process and Reality by Whitehead. They were using >> words in a funny way, and I couldn't quite understand what they were >> saying. Now I didn't want to interrupt them in their own conversation and >> keep asking them to explain something, and on the few occasions that I did, >> they'd try to explain it to me, but I still didn't get it. Finally they >> invited me to come to their seminar. >> >> They had a seminar that was like, a class. It had been meeting once a >> week to discuss a new chapter out of Process and Reality - some guy would >> give a report on it and then there would be a discussion. I went to this >> seminar promising myself to keep my mouth shut, reminding myself that I >> didn't know anything about the subject, and I was going there just to watch. >> >> What happened there was typical - so typical that it was unbelievable, >> but true. First of all, I sat there without saying anything, which is >> almost unbelievable, but also true. A student gave a report on the chapter >> to be studied that week. In it Whitehead kept using the words "essential >> object" in a particular technical way that presumably he had defined, but >> that I didn't understand. >> >> After some discussion as to what "essential object" meant, the professor >> leading the seminar said something meant to clarify things and drew >> something that looked like lightning bolts on the blackboard. "Mr. >> Feynman," he said, "would you say an electron is an 'essential object'?" >> >> Well, now I was in trouble. I admitted that I hadn't read the book, so I >> had no idea of what Whitehead meant by the phrase; I had only come to >> watch. "But," I said, "I'll try to answer the professor's question if you >> will first answer a question from me, so I can have a better idea of what >> 'essential object' means. >> >> What I had intended to do was to find out whether they thought >> theoretical constructs were essential objects. The electron is a theory >> that we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we >> can almost call it real. I wanted to make the idea of a theory clear by >> analogy. In the case of the brick, my next question was going to be, "What >> about the inside of the brick?" - and I would then point out that no one >> has ever seen the inside of a brick. Every time you break the brick, you >> only see the surface. That the brick has an inside is a simple theory which >> helps us understand things better. The theory of electrons is analogous. So >> I began by asking, "Is a brick an essential object?" >> >> Then the answers came out. One man stood up and said, "A brick as an >> individual, specific brick. That is what Whitehead means by an essential >> object." >> >> Another man said, "No, it isn't the individual brick that is an essential >> object; it's the general character that all bricks have in common - their >> 'brickiness' - that is the essential object." >> >> Another guy got up and said, "No, it's not in the bricks themselves. >> 'Essential object' means the idea in the mind that you get when you think >> of bricks." >> >> Another guy got up, and another, and I tell you I have never heard such >> ingenious different ways of looking at a brick before. And, just like it >> should in all stories about philosophers, it ended up in complete chaos. In >> all their previous discussions they hadn't even asked themselves whether >> such a simple object as a brick, much less an electron, is an "essential >> object"." >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
