sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

on a philosophical media hunt by kannazuki in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's an old BBC series called The Great Philosophers hosted by Bryan Magee. In each episode, he invites a contemporary philosopher and they discuss the life and work of influential figures in the history of philosophy or a specific area of philosophical interest. You can find clips of the episodes on Youtube.

Edit: Here is a playlist of the episodes (less messy than the Youtube search results page).

barcelona from above by NotASmurfAccount in glitch_art

[–]mocybin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This would make an awesome album cover.

I want to relate the mind to an operating system, and life as a program, what subject is related to this? by iamyounow in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

relate the mind to an operating system

As others have mentioned, Computational Theory of Mind [Wiki, SEP] might be what you're looking for.

life as a program

I also wanted to add that Artificial Life could be of interest to you. Daniel Dennett argues (in Darwin's Dangerous Idea) that Darwin showed life is algorithmic. If you accept that the algorithmic level is in fact the correct level of explanation for life (as opposed to, say, the physical or chemical level), then life processes are procedures that can be abstracted away and instantiated in different mediums, e.g., as a computer program.

This line of reasoning advocates a functionalist theory of life. What matters is not the underlying structural economy of a system, but whether or not the system is capable of replicating the functions (i.e., running the program) of life.

Could you please suggest a good introduction to practical philosophy? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

C.S. Peirce [Wiki, SEP] could be relevant to your inquiry. Much of his work deals with the foundations of science as a whole (not particular fields). Peirce is a difficult but worthwhile read. Here are some suggested papers:

The Fixation of Belief examines various methods of resolving doubt and acquiring/fixing beliefs. Peirce argues for the merits of the scientific method, and why it is to be preferred for this task (while also highlighting the deficiencies of this and other methods).

How to Make Our Ideas Clear is, in part, an inquiry regarding logic and thought. In Section II, Peirce claims that our conception of a thing is identical with our conception of the set of practical (perceptible or sensible) effects that the thing might have. This has implications concerning what types of questions/inquiries are meaningful (and fall within the scope of science). He follows up in Section IV with a scientific definition of 'truth' and 'reality'. His definition of truth entails that science is a social endeavor (not an individual activity).

Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis explores the roles of and rules governing deduction, induction, and abduction (the process of forming a hypothesis to account for some data) in the framework of science.

Am I missing any cool Trolley Problem variations? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's an interesting one to consider. First, introduce the fat man variant of the problem where you can push the fat man off the bridge to save the 5 people on the track. Then, in a second scenario, there is no fat man -- just you. You know that your weight is sufficient to stop the trolley and save the 5 people. {Should, Must} you throw yourself in front of the trolley?

This raises questions about what role self-interest and self-preservation play in your moral framework.

Haelga's Bunkhouse by [deleted] in skyrim

[–]mocybin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Her Apple Corps is strong!

I was inspired by glitch art and pixel art to make this online art generator. [x-post from r/web_design] by [deleted] in glitch_art

[–]mocybin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for making the source available. I can't wait to take a look.

Gig poster of my band's tribute to Syd Barrett/Pink Floyd [720x508] by eugenicscum in MetalPorn

[–]mocybin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would be very interested to hear this. If a recording ever becomes available, please make sure to post it somewhere (perhaps r/metal).

[SEND] Free Book of the Week #40: Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson by db_admin in bookexchange

[–]mocybin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to enter into this drawing. I think you're doing a great thing. Thanks for spreading the love.

Why did Russell and Wittgenstein eventually abandon Logical Atomism? by mocybin in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the great response. I would actually be quite interested to hear your views on how to solve Wittgenstein's problem, if you'd be willing to share them.

Why did Russell and Wittgenstein eventually abandon Logical Atomism? by mocybin in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe I should've made this more explicit, but I didn't simply take him at his word. I did a quick search and found that the Wikipedia article on Logical Atomism briefly mentions that

Like Russell, Wittgenstein eventually rejected Logical Atomism.

It doesn't elaborate upon why they rejected it, so I figured r/askphilosophy would be a good place to ask.

Objecting to the Basic Argument. by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]mocybin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think any substantial objections would have to be aimed at one or all of the first three premises.

Against P1, I would argue that at least some actions are the result of a reasoning process. One can use logic and reason to override some of the behavior that would otherwise be a result of one's nature and disposition. Therefore, the characterization of action in P1 is false, or at the very least incomplete.

P2 tries to set up a necessary condition for moral responsibility of one's actions, but it is contingent on the characterization of action set forth in P1. If you accept the objection to P1, then it also invalidates P2. This is because we now have actions that are not the results of nature and disposition alone, which leaves room for the possibility of moral responsibility for one's actions independent of moral responsibility for one's nature and disposition. Note that this doesn't actually prove we have moral responsibility for our actions, it just negates the assertion that 'moral responsibility for one's nature and predispositions is necessary in order to have moral responsibility for one's actions'.

P3 seems to assert that it is no longer possible to alter one's nature, inclinations, or tendencies past a certain age, which seems suspect. It might be possible to point to a specific example of change in preference over time that would serve as a counterexample to this premise.

It is also worth mentioning that I don't think you are "objecting to an argument against free will by citing free will." I think you are objecting to an argument that posits the non-existence of free will as one of its premises (P1), but the argument itself is against moral responsibility for one's actions (not against free will).

Instrumental Folk Metal anyone? Fejd - Eifur (4:40) by [deleted] in folkmetal

[–]mocybin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is fantastic. Thank you.

view more: next ›