PD: Yesterday I saw an advertising in a wall: "Metaphysical Tarot, call (number)"
2013/9/9 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > 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 <johnkcl...@gmail.com> > >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
